A proof for the existence of God?

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
I have been reading a lot of articles in this domain of philosophy.
The article provided for by this link, made some good points of why to refute this philosophical point of view.

For instance this argument:

This argument falls under the same traps. It does nothing to defend materialism. And it attempts to argue against solipsism by essentially playing semantic games with the concept of "My mind" or "single mental state". The idea that only multiple minds can create a social context with which to express solipsism in language also implies that a single mind that imagines multiple people, creating this same context, is really not a single mind. It must be multple minds by definition. These concepts can be used to define away solipsism but you can see it does nothing for materialism.

If you aren't even able of recognizing the validity of such an argument, it is very arguable if continuation of this discussion has any meaning at all. I would suggest then for you to go on read some articles and books on this issue. [/B]

No thanks. I don't like for others to do my thinking for me. While you may be able to use this argument above to question my credibility on the topic, I'll point out that it has taken us 7 pages to get to this argument. And it's not even yours. None of your arguments have come close to a legitamate point. And this is what I've been trying to point out. The argument above is a nice try but I honestly do not see how materialism can be concluded with the certainty that you have dsiplayed. Even common sense notions must be defended in philosophy topics. They cannot be assumed.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Okay. I think I understand what you want me to do. I've given a good argument for my own position; but now you want me to give a good argument against 'external reality'. Is that right?
If you want me to do that, I shall.

LifeGazer, if you read my last post to you, you will see that I think you should have already argued away the material world. The idea that everyone is experiencing the same laws etc. can be attributed to an outside material influencer if you leave it there. As opposed to what you argued...that all minds are really one.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Okay. I think I understand what you want me to do. I've given a good argument for my own position; but now you want me to give a good argument against 'external reality'. Is that right?
If you want me to do that, I shall.

Well this is the logical way to go. You see, you have presented an idea (which I still think is flawed, for the previous reasons (also see https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97&highlight=Hurdles+Mind+hypothesis)), and it is - at the very most - on equal footing with the other existing (and commonly held) view. Thus you should now disprove the other view.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
This argument falls under the same traps. It does nothing to defend materialism. And it attempts to argue against solipsism by essentially playing semantic games with the concept of "My mind" or "single mental state". The idea that only multiple minds can create a social context with which to express solipsism in language also implies that a single mind that imagines multiple people, creating this same context, is really not a single mind. It must be multple minds by definition. These concepts can be used to define away solipsism but you can see it does nothing for materialism.

I was not defending materialism, and in this thread that is not the topic. I was just trying to argue that the point of view of Idealism, when put to the extreme, would lead to solipsism, and my arguments were solely to tackle that position because it is unholdable.

I will start (when I have time, and collected the right arguments) a separate thread on that later.

No thanks. I don't like for others to do my thinking for me. While you may be able to use this argument above to question my credibility on the topic, I'll point out that it has taken us 7 pages to get to this argument. And it's not even yours. None of your arguments have come close to a legitamate point. And this is what I've been trying to point out. The argument above is a nice try but I honestly do not see how materialism can be concluded with the certainty that you have dsiplayed. Even common sense notions must be defended in philosophy topics. They cannot be assumed.

Like I said, I was not even trying to workout a full representation of the position taken in by materialism.
The idealist stand is just to tackle materialism wherever they can, put it's premise under question etc.

If idealism, as it states it is, can stand on it's own, and can replace materialism (which it can't of course), then my arguments against it, are very valid. If materialism has to defend it's basic premise, so should idealism.

I have never seen a reasoned argument for the existence of 'mind' for instance. Yet this is the central and crucial premise of idealism. It is nothing but pre-biased assumptions, but that position needs to be argued profoundly of course, and not just on the basis of assumptions.

For the rest of this discussion I simply state the following:

The identity "LifeGazer" on this discussion board does not have a mind, but his postings on here are just output of a very sophisticated computer connected to the internet, that can analyze written language, and make responds. I call that computer mindless, since it obviously doesn't have a mind. All the computer does is simulate a philosopher. And, as we shall show, a very bad philosopher indeed!

Now let him (if he has a mind, at least!) reason against THAT point of view.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
I was not defending materialism, and in this thread that is not the topic. I was just trying to argue that the point of view of Idealism, when put to the extreme, would lead to solipsism, and my arguments were solely to tackle that position because it is unholdable.

As I've read this thread I have seen you make several side remarks that materialism is not only true but it is the only view that holds up to any reason.

Here is an example of it in paranthesis implying "of course" it cannot "replace" materialism.

If idealism, as it states it is, can stand on it's own, and can replace materialism (which it can't of course), then my arguments against it, are very valid.

If materialism has to defend it's basic premise, so should idealism.

I agree completely.

For the rest of this discussion I simply assume the following:

LG does not have a mind, but his postings on here are just output of a very sophisticated computer connected to the internet, that can analyze written language, and make responds. I call that computer mindless, since it obviously doesn't have a mind. All the computer does is simulate a philosopher.

Now let him (if he has a mind, at least!) reason against THAT point of view.

Yeah, I saw this angle made in one of your ealier post. This seems like you are trying to take the logic to an extreme to hopefully show how ridiculous it is. But all you've done is prove the point of solipsism. The idea is that one only has knowledge of one's own mind. LifeGazer cannot convince you he has a mind. The fact that he cannot prove to you that he has a mind is exactly the point of solipsism.

But he doesn't need to convince you that you have one does he? The point of the debate is that as an individual you can only know of your mind. You cannot be certain of the existence of anything else, including other people's minds.

 

[Mentat]

Let's watch the personal remarks. Heusdens, if you don't like lifegazer's way of talking you don't have to respond at all (a good few members take that road anyway).

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Yeah, I saw this angle made in one of your ealier post. This seems like you are trying to take the logic to an extreme to hopefully show how ridiculous it is. But all you've done is prove the point of solipsism. The idea is that one only has knowledge of one's own mind. LifeGazer cannot convince you he has a mind. The fact that he cannot prove to you that he has a mind is exactly the point of solipsism.

But he doesn't need to convince you that you have one does he? The point of the debate is that as an individual you can only know of your mind. You cannot be certain of the existence of anything else, including other people's minds.

Well, all I do is simply use the same kind of strategy he (well, the mindles philosopher simulating program called "LifeGazer", I mean) uses against materialism (which is with reason, the only thing acceptable) against his own philosohpy. I am not defending solipsism or any other idiotic form of idealism of course. I just show him (the mindless philosopher simulating program "LifeGazer") the unreasonability of his own arguments.

The argument is not, and cannot be, that one can only have evidence of his/her own mind, of course. Since most people have family, relatives, and loved ones, friends, we do know that there are "other minds", and have to take them in consideration.

Same as to say that only "I" know what pain is. If that were true, then I would not have to mind about standing on someone else's feet.
But "I" in reality DO KNOW that this other person feels pain as much as I do, since if I am that ignorant about this other person, that person for sure will let me feel what pain is, by kicking me in the ass or something!

See how really simple this "philosophy" can be disproven, if one is able at least to put the debate on another level, that of practice?

It is just a pitty this medium does not allow one to kick someone else in the ass.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Fliption
You know. After reading this I'm not real sure that it says anywhere in here that the material world does not exists. If there is a sentence here that was supposed to mean that then I am not interpreting it right. Most of this seems to reiterate the first paragraph above. If I've understood all this correctly then I can agree with this as well.

Then I was correct - with reference to my last post. You want me to show why this argument negates an external reality.
I could write a long-post (and thread) about this. But I'm hoping this short passage will suffice:-
If you follow my argument to its conclusion, and can find no fault with it itself, then the idea of an external reality is instantly negated by the conclusion of that argument.
For example; if I argue that the universe is 'white', I've instantly showed that it is not 'black'. I don't also have to explain why the universe is not 'black' - because I've already showed you that it's 'white'. I hope you get my drift.
The point is that if I argue that all observers exist within the perception of One Mind (which is exactly what I have done - unless you find faults with that argument itself), then the space & time within that Mind are obviously an illusion. For in what sense can 'one Mind' be apart from itself, except when deluded?
... It cannot. Therefore, the 'separation' of one observer to the next is merely a 'delusion' (with all due respects) of the mind in respect to the reality of the situation. And if you find that hard to swallow; then consider that **it is impossible to be in a dream (or imagination) without the delusion of space & time interfering with the singularity of your awareness.**

Now I'm lost. How exactly do we get to a mind that is aware of things "prior" to sensing it? This is the first leap I see.

I thought I'd established that the creation of sensations was
by an aspect of the mind itself... since the universe does not know what 'pain' (or whatever sense you'd care to mention) is, does it? If it does, then the universe is an entity unto itself.
There's something within the mind which can transform mathematics into experience. And here resides the pivotal-point of my conclusion.
For if the mind can create sensation in relation to universal-phenomena, then it needs to understand the universal-phenomena before it can even try to represent it, with sensations.
For example, can the artist give a representation of something, without having an understanding of the thing he is trying to represent? I don't see how reason could say "yes the artist can", since the artist always has an idea of what he wants to convey. Likewise, the Mind cannot create the sensations (the artwork) of an external reality which is also 'ordered', unless the Mind already comprehends the mathematics of this order.
Consequently, the Mind understands things prior to 'sensing' them.

The existence of a material world can also be the reason that everyone has the same experience.

I'm not doubting the reality of the perception. Similarly; I could tell you that your dreams are 'daft', but I cannot tell you that you have not had those dreams. The dream is 'real' within the observer. But it is not 'real' externally to that observer.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
The argument is not, and cannot be, that one can only have evidence of his/her own mind, of course. Since most people have family, relatives, and loved ones, friends, we do know that there are "other minds", and have to take them in consideration.
[/B]

Now you have just once again resorted back to common sense notions and you're concluding materialism is correct by assuming that other people do exists. I hope that robber takes you to the bank safely.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Look, Mr Lifegazer. This is a "discussion board". For the sake of the discussion, I would like to state that discussion is not merely a series of monologue, in which people present their own selfish ideas, and do not listen to the reaction towards their ideas, which invalidate their arguments.

I made my points first. It's my argument. And I have commented about the irrelevance of many of these responses. Your methods should be more in-line with those used by Fliption. Whether he agrees with me or not, his style of debate at-least exhibits an open-ness to that debate. You just want to kill the debate with assertions and materialistic propoganda. I cannot reason with you about my own ideas.

I have presented some "hurdles" for your basic premisis of your 'theory'. Do you care, and respond them?

You haven't presented any hurdles to my own reasoning. You've just presented a barrier to hide behind.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
No, you never did show that. That was your first leap of faith. You cannot go from "perceptions of reality are in the mind" to "reality is in the mind" without making an illogical leap (aka a leap of faith).

I've shown that the only reality you can confirm is a mind-ful reality... whereby you have senses and then emotionalise/reason over those senses. That is your 'existence'. That's our existence, too. You even agreed with this, earlier.
"Reality is in the mind" is confirmed - regardless of the rest of my argument.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
If you follow my argument to its conclusion, and can find no fault with it itself, then the idea of an external reality is instantly negated by the conclusion of that argument.

I'm not sure you understood me. Referring to the idea that everyone experiences the same laws etc. You then concluded that all this experience must come from the same mind. I am suggesting that another reason that everyone experiences the same thing is that there is a material world that instigates the perception. From there we would have to claim that there is only one way for a mind to recognize pain.

There's something within the mind which can transform mathematics into experience.

Right. But why does this imply that 3 separate minds would recognize pain differently?

For if the mind can create sensation in relation to universal-phenomena, then it needs to understand the universal-phenomena before it can even try to represent it, with sensations.

For example, can the artist give a representation of something, without having an understanding of the thing he is trying to represent?

When I first read all this, I thought to myself "what a leap this is". Just like most here are doing. But then I thought about it and I think I actually understand what your saying LifeGazer. I think I now see your point here. But If I do understand it correctly, then another explanation is possible. The mind may be able to represent things because it is the product of these things. This would be the materialist stance. If they can show (which they can't at the moment) that these experiences are not created but are actually just an algorythmic determined output to the external input then they could end this argument. It would also explain why separate minds have similar experiences.

 

[CJames]

Lifegazer, you have not demonstrated that the external universe is the creation of the mind, only that all observations are made in the mind. See my last post.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Solipsism is internally inconsistent, because it requires the world to exist within exactly and only one mind. If two people who both claim to be solipsist ever meet, then one of them can't be a solopsist. In reality, there is not one mind, but there are billions of minds.

Solipsisms has to be rejected for that reason. Idealism ultimately leads to that. They only can escape it by claiming there is a higher order mind, that of a Deity, for which there is and never can be any evidence. Such an artificial construct therefore also has to be rejected.

In reality though, whatever Idealists thinkers claim, all persons are materialist. If you step over a street and see an incoming bus, you will try to prevent being droven over. Nobody will at that time argue wether or not the bus really exists beyond the perceptions.

And there you have it, solipsism of its own accord is not the answer, and neither is materialism. And that's the Yin and Yang of it. You cannot have "one potential" without the other.

Therefore, 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 ... and not, 1 + 1 = 2 ... Welcome to the world of living color!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
No one here except heusdens and myself seems to understand what role the rejection of solipsism plays here. Consequently, we are spending way too much time on it. I'll make a longer post on why I reject solipsism later, but for now it is sufficient to make one point clear:

Just about every party involved here reject solipism!

That's right: me, huesdens, LG, we all reject it (except Iacchus).

The shedding of unnecessary (and unacceptable) assumptions goes something like this:

1. Either everything is happening in my mind, or it is not.
2. Meet another person.
3. Either this person is in my mind, or he is not.
4. Accept that he is not in my mind, and thus reject solipsism.
5. Either everything is material, or everything is in some super mind.

See? One must reject solipsism to even reach the decision of whether or not to accept god.

Here is a good article on solipsism, and why it is without basis. Maybe it will make my explanation uneccesary:

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/solipsis.htm

The choice is not between whether to play in left field or right field, but on the whole playing field together. Although I will say that the materialists seem to be playing in "left field," because they won't acknowledge the playing field as a whole--i.e., "One Mind." As for myself, I tend to play somewhere between center field and right field, which isn't to say that I don't cross over to left field from time to time to snag a good catch ...

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
This comes from nowhere. You can't prove this assertion. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary. Infants do not understand their perseptions at all when they are born, they are clueless. Only by a process of trial and error can the mind finally present a comprehensible picture of the universe.

Here; you're talking about the processes of concious-reason and the acquirement of knowledge. What you think you know results from contemplation of previous experience through the senses.
You're confusing 'ourselves' with 'The Mind'. I contend that The Mind is omniscient in the eternal moment, since its power to reason is not dependent upon the existence of things outside of itself. Indeed, I did show that sensation necessarily does proceed knowledge.

Even had the previous conclusion been correct, this doesn't follow logically. Why, for instance, couldn't each mind simply be aware of a set of rules upon creation? Or why assume that any of the living entities sharing these "laws of mind" even exist, that they aren't the creation of your mind? Since all these multiple conclusions exist, the whole thing's a non-sequiter, as Tom said.

If all observers share the same laws of physics, then those said observers are occupying a singular-reality.
You think I make a leap to saying that existence is in One Mind. But if I first show that existence is 'Mind-ful' (read my first-post again; you'll see that I do in-fact show that existence is mind-ful before making the conclusion about 'one Mind' - in my penultimate-statement.), and then I observe that all perceptions are of one reality (one Law); then I am perfectly-placed to state that all perceptions exist within one Mind!

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The choice is not between whether to play in left field or right field, but on the whole playing field together. Although I will say that the materialists seem to be playing in "left field," because they won't acknowledge the playing field as a whole--i.e., "One Mind." As for myself, I tend to play somewhere between center field and right field, which isn't to say that I don't cross over to left field from time to time to snag a good catch ...

That is not a good conclusion about matrialism, it would imply materialism does not recognize mind. In materialism the picture looks like this, the whole field is matter and infinite and which consists of smaller fields that are minds, which are finite. They are the players on the field, they belong to and depend of the field as a whole. Without properly examining the field, they do not know a thing about the field (what is it? how big is it? where does it come from? has it been created by a supreme player?) and can create for themselves all kinds of dilusions.

 

[Iacchus32]

The Advent of Color

Do you see my avatar to the left? Now this is an actual effect that I've been able to produce over and over again in my mind when I meditate. Now, unless you know how to do this for yourself, then the whole idea becomes pretty abstract. But, if I were to teach you how to do this (notice how I'm addressing "you" as an actual person?), i.e., you and so and so, and anyone else who was willing to participate, then we all might have what we term a "collective experience," and yes, then we would be able to compare notes ...

If you're interested, I briefly describe what it entails in the following thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=429". Also note that this is my 373rd post, as corresponds to the colors yellow (3), violet (7) and yellow (3), which portrays both sides of the yellow rings (303) incorporating the "violet patch" within (373). I explain the relationship between the numbers and colors in the thread. Hence it's a synchronistic event (I didn't plan it this way) which seems to coincide with today being Easter, the Day of Ascension. For indeed once this effect is achieved (in my mind), it signifies a resolution or "coming to terms" of the things I had been meditating on, at which point I begin to experience the sensation of everything being "lifted up" to a higher level (i.e., ascension).

 

[FZ+]

If you follow my argument to its conclusion, and can find no fault with it itself, then the idea of an external reality is instantly negated by the conclusion of that argument.

Wrong. First, a perception based reality from a fundamental mind, which is what you are aiming at is philosophically indistinguishible from one involving an external reality. Secondly, you can not discount the existence of an external reality outside of your internal one, outside your perceptions. The situation is not that of black and white, but rather concluding that black can never exist, even outside of what you see as reality. Even if you are completely right in every way (very disputable), you cannot disprove an external reality. You have merely provided one possibility. Not discounted the other. I could similarly argue reality is supported by a host of invisible rabbits. You can not disprove that assertion, and it is self-consistent. But it may well not be true.

The mind in your hypothesis boils down to a simple fudge factor that makes your ideas exactly the same as that of an external reality. Just as my invisible rabbits are. And you have only shown, can only show perception is mindful. You have not shown the mind is above matter. You have not shown that knowledge is necessary to create sensory awareness. You have not shown this knowledge cannot come from external reality. You have not shown the mind itself is real. You have not shown that pain etc is not caused by material existence. You have not shown the mind creates the external reality. You have not shown that perception is wholly mindful. Need I go on? You HAVE created an argument that satisfies itself. But you have not shown this is the only argument that satisfies the real world.

 

[Iacchus32]

Knowledge versus Wisdom

Originally posted by heusdens
That is not a good conclusion about matrialism, it would imply materialism does not recognize mind. In materialism the picture looks like this, the whole field is matter and infinite and which consists of smaller fields that are minds, which are finite. They belong to and depend of the field as a whole.

I think it's a very good analogy, at least in the sense that we're speaking about left brain activity (materialism) versus right brain activity (idealism), neither of which is complete unless it incorporates the other. One wants to deal with the "external facts" which are dead (after the fact), the other strives to pinpoint "the essence" which is alive (in the beginning).


From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=609" ...

Origianlly posted by Iacchus32
Knowledge is the form (external). Wisdom is the essence (internal).

What point is knowledge? if it doesn't exist to serve wisdom?

Which is more important? The (external) facts? Or, the (internal) experience which leads to the facts?

Is it only knowledge that we seek? (physical evidence). Or, do we seek "context" (and the essence within).

Can life be sustained outside of context? outside of a form designed to suit it? which has not been corrupted or breeched?

What point is a dead corpse? without a spirit or essence to move it?

What point is a dead (physical) universe? without a Divine Essence to set it in motion?

What is an (external) effect without a (internal) cause?

What point is knowledge? if it doesn't exist to serve wisdom? ...

God as "a fact" is dead. God as "an experience" is alive.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
God as "a fact" is dead. God as "an experience" is alive. [/B]

True, but the last one should read the experience of "I", or the experience of the mind in the mind itself. Cause the only mind one can witness and experience directly (from within) is own's own mind.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
True, but the last one should read the experience of "I", or the experience of the mind in the mind itself. Cause the only mind one can witness and experience directly (from within) is own's own mind.

Where does life come from? If it doesn't come from within? It certainly doesn't exist without (of context or form).

So how does life acknowledge life, except that there were a "standard of life" within?

 

[Lifegazer]

An analysis of external reality.
This argument shall seek to strengthen the validity of my first-post by analysing the credibility of an external-reality which would actually mirror what we are perceiving. In other words, I shall be discussing concepts pertaining to a real 4-dimensional universe, and asking if 'sense' can validate such a reality.

... The crunch-question of this topic now (for many of you) is: Is there an actual 4-dimensional reality, outside of our perceptions of one?
Here, I shall seek to enforce my argument that there is not such a thing, by analysing the actual logic of 'real space' itself.
That space should be tangibly-real (as materialists need to believe) beyond our perceptions of it, opens it up to some telling questions...
What is space?
- It cannot be 'absolutely nothing', because it's supposed to be filling a real 4-dimensional volume with dynamic properties/attributes. And obviously, there cannot be incremental-motion through 'nothing'. You cannot move through x meters of 'nothing', for example. It's just a complete absurdity of logic. In fact, it's just impossible to move through 'nothing'.
Obviously, 'nothing' cannot fill anything... and motion through it is certainly impossible. So; there must be substance (of sorts) to 'real' 4-D space. Space must be something real. I hope we can agree with this.
So; is this space broken/fragmented, or uniform?
If this thing which we call 'space' is to exist beyond our perceptions of it, then it must exist as a uniform-entity (indivisible), or as a fragmented/divided entity.
The big problem with 'fragmented space', is that all fragmented objects must be fragmented upon/within another medium, allowing for fluidity and division. So, we would need to invent another hitherto-unknown substance to allow for the fragmentation of space. A stage or medium is required, to allow for the expansion and fluidity of space. *Therefore, fragmented-space would require the existence of a hitherto-unsuspected medium: to move through and to fill.*
Clearly; the fact is that we would require, ultimately, that an external reality be founded upon a uniform-medium.
Note that uniform = indivisible/singular.
So, ultimately, any 4-dimensional reality would have to be founded upon a uniform spatial-substance... whether you want to label that substance as 'space', or not. I hope you can see that.
Now, this uniform space - this medium - is indivisible in itself. So, how can anything really move through it? How can there be real movement through a substance that is indivisible? It is not logically possible to move half-way, for example, through an indivisible-medium.
Clearly, motion is just a concept gleaned from the relationship between 'things' which exist within this space/medium; but this concept has no reality beyond the perception of it.
Real motion cannot occur through a real indivisible-medium. And any external reality must, ultimately, be indivisible.
IMO, any rational contemplation of the concept 'real space', leads one to conclude that such a concept cannot actually exist beyond the perception of such a thing. Therefore, I again conclude that 'reality' is completely Mindful.
Thanks for reading.

 

[CJames]

You're confusing 'ourselves' with 'The Mind'.

No, at this point in the argument you were trying to prove that our minds can't understand reality without first having knowledge of its existence. Only afterward did you try to prove the existence of an omniscent, omnipresent "Mind."

Indeed, I did show that sensation necessarily does proceed knowledge.

Yes, you did, and how does that prove those sensations aren't real, may I ask?

If all observers share the same laws of physics, then those said observers are occupying a singular-reality.

I assume by this you mean the same reality. Where in this entire thread have you proven that this same reality isn't simply an external reality?

 

[CJames]

The crunch-question of this topic now (for many of you) is: Is there an actual 4-dimensional reality, outside of our perceptions of one?

That is not my position at all. I don't believe the existence of external reality has been proven, I assume one does because it is the only reality I experience. It is impossible to prove either is true. But we must operate with an assumption if we wish to continue living our lives, assume an external reality exists or assume one doesn't. Assuming one doesn't leaves us with the assumption that nothing exists, we can't even logically show that other people truly exist.

To be perfectly frank, LG, the rest of your post is less logical than most of your arguments. Indivisible doesn't imply no motion. You are simply creating a definition of uniform space that doesn't allow motion, that's not how you go about disproving things.

Let's see. An omniscent, omnipresent mind must be uniform, correct? Therefore, it is indivisible. Therefore, individual minds can't be divided out of this Mind. There you go.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
An analysis of external reality.
What is space?
- It cannot be 'absolutely nothing', because it's supposed to be filling a real 4-dimensional volume with dynamic properties/attributes. And obviously, there cannot be incremental-motion through 'nothing'. You cannot move through x meters of 'nothing', for example. It's just a complete absurdity of logic. In fact, it's just impossible to move through 'nothing'.
Obviously, 'nothing' cannot fill anything... and motion through it is certainly impossible. So; there must be substance (of sorts) to 'real' 4-D space. Space must be something real. I hope we can agree with this.

No. Our full universe - with physical and metaphysical dimensions - can be created with only an empty membrane (and the three processes of movement , isolation and interaction).
Condition: membrane is infinite stretchable and unbreakable
Mechanism: a special manifold.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
No, at this point in the argument you were trying to prove that our minds can't understand reality without first having knowledge of its existence. Only afterward did you try to prove the existence of an omniscent, omnipresent "Mind."

I have mentioned the duality of awareness in my previous topic. The Mind is aware of itself. But by default, this would require that The Mind is aware of its own possible attributes - it is aware of every single thing that it is, or which it can be, as well as being self-aware. It is aware, for example, of being 'us', and this awareness of 'us' is evident through our awareness of ourselves.
You must remember that a shift of awareness can happen within one mind. If this wasn't true, for example, then 'you' could never lose 'yourself' to the reality of your own bizarre dreams. Yet you do. We all get lost in our dreams. Our minds become aware of a different reality to the one it lives in now (the physical-universe with its physical-laws). Its awareness is shifted to another realm of being. And yet it is still 'you' which exists within the dream, even though your awareness of 'reality' has shifted somewhat.
It wouldn't matter what reality you found yourself in. 'You' will always be 'you'.
There is a strong-clue in the previous passage which should tell you that our identity is not a complete-function of the reality we find ourselves in. Fundamentally, there is something 'about you' which is immutable in all perceived realities. That applies to us all. In our dreams, our feelings are consistent with the reality we find ourselves in.

Yes, you did, and how does that prove those sensations aren't real, may I ask?

The sensations are 'real'. Those sensations are our source of universal-perception within the self-awareness. The self is looking within itself, and is seeing a universe. Literally.
Everything which any individual senses and then reasons (to formulate knowledge), is an inner-experience. It is a singular experience. 'I' is 'one'.
So, all of the things which one sees, is happening within the one. They're happening within your mind.
The Mind is independent of its perceptions. Distinct from them. Remember: the Mind itself has created its own 'sensations'. And the sensations are the product of a Mind which knew what was happening before it created the sensation of those events.
Now. I am not advocating that 'you' or 'i' knew what was happening prior to the sensations. But I am advocating that the actual self-awareness (of Divine existence) must exist at the back of our minds (remember the shifting of awareness I mentioned?), and that it knows about the universe prior to sensing it.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
That is not my position at all. I don't believe the existence of external reality has been proven

Why not? You have to say which bit is wrong, and why.

I assume one does because it is the only reality I experience.

As I keep trying to tell you: the only reality you experience is an inner-reality. You've never experienced an out-of-your-awareness experience before. You've only had inner awareness of anything. So, your assumption is not justified, on those grounds.
Your position, philosophically, is untenable. And belief in an external-reality is purely religious. You have nothing rationally-solid to build it upon. Nothing.

It is impossible to prove either is true.

That's not true. But it might be impossible to explain why it is the case.

But we must operate with an assumption if we wish to continue living our lives

Do you think your life takes on less significance by believing my philosophy? That's not true. And you know it.

Assuming one doesn't leaves us with the assumption that nothing exists,

'Assuming' one? Did you bother to read the explanation I gave? I've assumed nothing. I'm the only one here giving reasons for my philosophy, too. It is you who is guilty of blind-assumption here, not me.

To be perfectly frank, LG, the rest of your post is less logical than most of your arguments.

No it's not. Read it again. Think about what I say. Find the fault in what I say. Don't just say that my reasoning is faulty and expect to leave it at that.

Indivisible doesn't imply no motion.

Of course it does. Try moving through an indivisible substance. It's impossible. And if you exist inside an indivisible substance, then you are existing within a singularity. And if you're existing within a singularity, then you're not really moving - except amongst a Mind.

You are simply creating a definition of uniform space that doesn't allow motion,

I am giving you a rational perspective of what the term 'uniform space' should mean.

that's not how you go about disproving things.

In a rational debate, I use rational perspective of concepts. And then I show where they lead. The conclusion about external reality is justified via this argument. A 'real' 4-dimensional external-reality is not a viable option. Not rationally, anyway.

Let's see. An omniscent, omnipresent mind must be uniform, correct? Therefore, it is indivisible. Therefore, individual minds can't be divided out of this Mind. There you go.

Like I said, The Mind shifts awareness. It does not split into two minds. In itself, it is indivisible, regardless of the shifts in perception.

 

[Lifegazer]

Hello. Not spoken to you before...

Originally posted by pelastration
No. Our full universe - with physical and metaphysical dimensions - can be created with only an empty membrane

An empty-membrane = 'awareness'.
What does a 2-dimensional membrane exist within, apart from the mind?
What exists beyond these membranes? Don't say "nothing", or that entity cannot truly exist. 'Nothing' cannot truly exist next to 'something'. Because something cannot touch nothing.
That's how we can know that existence is boundless, ultimately.
It is impossible for a 2-dimensional membrane to actually exist in a tangible reality. Because it would have to exist next to nothing. And that makes no sense.
I have no idea what the mathematics of 2-dimensional membranes can predict. But I do know that they are not the ultimate explanation for the reality we perceive. Because they cannot rationally-explain their own existence, they won't be able to explain the reality we see, ultimately.

(and the three processes of movement , isolation and interaction).
Condition: membrane is infinite stretchable and unbreakable
Mechanism: a special manifold.

What medium does it stretch amongst? All motion requires a 'medium of motion'. But ultimately, we must be left with an indivisible-medium - something which isn't moving within something else... but which is the source of all motion. And that's an indivisible medium.
Thus, the logic of motion does apply. Motion cannot really occur in an external reality. It can only exist conceptually, through the human experience.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
An analysis of external reality.
This argument shall seek to strengthen the validity of my first-post by analysing the credibility of an external-reality which would actually mirror what we are perceiving. In other words, I shall be discussing concepts pertaining to a real 4-dimensional universe, and asking if 'sense' can validate such a reality.

... The crunch-question of this topic now (for many of you) is: Is there an actual 4-dimensional reality, outside of our perceptions of one?
Here, I shall seek to enforce my argument that there is not such a thing, by analysing the actual logic of 'real space' itself.
That space should be tangibly-real (as materialists need to believe) beyond our perceptions of it, opens it up to some telling questions...
What is space?
- It cannot be 'absolutely nothing', because it's supposed to be filling a real 4-dimensional volume with dynamic properties/attributes. And obviously, there cannot be incremental-motion through 'nothing'. You cannot move through x meters of 'nothing', for example. It's just a complete absurdity of logic. In fact, it's just impossible to move through 'nothing'.
Obviously, 'nothing' cannot fill anything... and motion through it is certainly impossible. So; there must be substance (of sorts) to 'real' 4-D space. Space must be something real. I hope we can agree with this.
So; is this space broken/fragmented, or uniform?
If this thing which we call 'space' is to exist beyond our perceptions of it, then it must exist as a uniform-entity (indivisible), or as a fragmented/divided entity.
The big problem with 'fragmented space', is that all fragmented objects must be fragmented upon/within another medium, allowing for fluidity and division. So, we would need to invent another hitherto-unknown substance to allow for the fragmentation of space. A stage or medium is required, to allow for the expansion and fluidity of space. *Therefore, fragmented-space would require the existence of a hitherto-unsuspected medium: to move through and to fill.*
Clearly; the fact is that we would require, ultimately, that an external reality be founded upon a uniform-medium.
Note that uniform = indivisible/singular.
So, ultimately, any 4-dimensional reality would have to be founded upon a uniform spatial-substance... whether you want to label that substance as 'space', or not. I hope you can see that.
Now, this uniform space - this medium - is indivisible in itself. So, how can anything really move through it? How can there be real movement through a substance that is indivisible? It is not logically possible to move half-way, for example, through an indivisible-medium.
Clearly, motion is just a concept gleaned from the relationship between 'things' which exist within this space/medium; but this concept has no reality beyond the perception of it.
Real motion cannot occur through a real indivisible-medium. And any external reality must, ultimately, be indivisible.
IMO, any rational contemplation of the concept 'real space', leads one to conclude that such a concept cannot actually exist beyond the perception of such a thing. Therefore, I again conclude that 'reality' is completely Mindful.
Thanks for reading.

Let's tackle this scientifically.

"It cannot be 'absolutely nothing', because it's supposed to be filling a real 4-dimensional volume with dynamic properties/attributes." : Your argument is wrong but your conclusion is correct. By certain key principles of quantum mechanics, space is indeed not nothing. Rather, it is filled with virtual particles, zero point energy, and is backed by a background of spacetime. The 4 dimensional reality of observable space. Some mathematics, based on experimentation etc suggest the existence of other dimensions which are outside our perception. The idea of either quantised, or non-quantised spacetime does involve the idea of a background "fabric" of spacetime. That is certainly not unsuspected. Relativity deals with it. For the meantime, we assume it is relatively flat. But it is non uniform due to the existence of of gravity changing it's texture. The modern theory of gravity and motion is based on non-uniformity in space. Ever heard of gravitational time dilation? You cannot justify your assertion that "fragmented objects must be fragmented upon/within another medium". Rather, all experimental evidence shows the reverse. All fluidic substances must be non-uniform and fragmented on some level.

Much of this is incidentally true by both your hypothesis and external reality with a constant laws of mind.

Uniform does not equal indivisible. It means indistinguishible, not currently divided, but not indivisible. I do not see how you can get that by any semblence of logic. And you can indeed allow movement, even on an indivisible medium. The medium can change and warp. It can concentrate. And uniform substance does not imply a substance in stasis.

Quantised or "fragmented" spacetime does not require an uniform medium. Water is based on non-uniform atoms and molecules, but does it not have fluidic character?

"Clearly, motion is just a concept gleaned from the relationship between 'things' which exist within this space/medium; but this concept has no reality beyond the perception of it."
COMPLETELY unsupported. Relative motion is indeed the reality of existence. But to say this concept has no reality beyond perception is absurd. Relative motion is the basis of physical laws by post-Einsteinian physics. It is the basis of mass, momentum, time itself. Each are tangibly real, even when unperceived.

"Real motion cannot occur through a real indivisible-medium. And any external reality must, ultimately, be indivisible."
Doubly incorrect, as seen before. And by all arguments, a mindful reality follows the same rules. If the universe has fluidic character as we can see, and you say, then as you say the existence of the mind is also an uniform and indivisible entity. And by this argument, you and I cannot exist. The universe cannot exist. Hence, if your argument is correct, mindful reality is similarly disproved. Fortunately, as shown, your argument is not correct.

"IMO, any rational contemplation of the concept 'real space', leads one to conclude that such a concept cannot actually exist beyond the perception of such a thing. Therefore, I again conclude that 'reality' is completely Mindful."

"IMO" is the only thing that makes this statement correct.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
Let's tackle this scientifically.

Sorry; but the correct word to use is "rationally". Especially in this forum. Nevertheless, I'll entertain your complaints...

"It cannot be 'absolutely nothing', because it's supposed to be filling a real 4-dimensional volume with dynamic properties/attributes." : Your argument is wrong but your conclusion is correct.

Which part of my argument is wrong, and why? If you pass judgement on anything here, you need to explain yourself. Please.
And how can a bad argument give the correct conclusion, anyway?

By certain key principles of quantum mechanics, space is indeed not nothing. Rather, it is filled with virtual particles, zero point energy,

Let's note the significance of the use of the term "zero point energy". The rational-understanding of that term infers an energy which exists at singularity.

and is backed by a background of spacetime.

A singularity is not "backed" by anything. A singularity is boundless.
"zero point energy" cannot reside within space or time. Sorry... it's just a logical consequence of the terms which you provide. A singularity experiences no time (change) and is indivisible. Therefore, it's impossible that zero-point energy could be backed by anything, including 'nothing'.

The 4 dimensional reality of observable space. Some mathematics, based on experimentation etc suggest the existence of other dimensions which are outside our perception.

Conceptual mathematics Fz. You obviously didn't consider what I said about making a distinction between things of the mind, and things which can actually tangibly-exist in a world which makes sense.
Did you read my post to 'pelastration'?

The idea of either quantised, or non-quantised spacetime does involve the idea of a background "fabric" of spacetime.

It has no choice. It's the only way to make sense of an existence in motion. Ultimately, there must be a medium for this motion. A uniform medium. An eternal, uniform medium.
But a uniform-medium is a singularity. And nothing can really move in a singularity. But if a Mind is present there, then motion can be perceived.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mentat
It's an aid to keep us from killing ourselves? If our mind produces all of reality, then even our reaction to pain is a product of the Mind.



I'll disregard the semantic error of that last sentence, for now. Who said anything about a singularity? Is this an add-on, to deflect counter-arguments, or was this part of the original hypothesis?



If the both the decision to cause pain, and the decision to make me dislike pain, belong to the Mind, then the Mind contradicts itself. Why should it make us feel pain?



Ok, that's a reasonable request.
You said:


Hurdle #4 has to do with the fact that when you leave an area, things continue to happen. Someone can tell you something about what happended when you left the party (for example), that you never witnessed.

Hurdles #2 and #3 have to do with the fact that our perception of reality is not/was not always correct. There was a time when everyone fully believed that the Earth was flat. This doesn't mean that the Earth actually was flat, does it? Hurdle number 2 also goes into the fact that we have dreams, and speculations, that never show up in actual reality. Why does the Mind distinguish between such things/"realities"?



Yes, and this reasoning is perfectly compatible with the idea that there is an external reality.



This is another important point. Why do we need such senses (or such organs that seem suited for the purpose of housing these senses), if the Mind is just imposing a reality on our awareness?



This is direct contrast to what the quote before last (above), where in you said (and I quote): "Knowledge is the product of contemplation... of those senses."



Actually, reason is not absolute. Tom has shown, in threads about Logic, that reason can be used to justify most any claims. CJames illustrated this with the Nacho hypothesis.

I realize that the thread has gone in different directions, but were you planning on responding to this, lifegazer?

 

[FZ+]

LG:

Sorry; but the correct word to use is "rationally". Especially in this forum.

Nope. I mean scientific. I mean using things that we can empirically observe, and are more or less indisputable. I do not mean doing it by speculation, as you are. And science is implicitly rational, is it not?

If you pass judgement on anything here, you need to explain yourself. Please.

Do read the rest of my post. I go on to explain.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. ZPE and vacuum energies do not require signularities. Singularities are in the middle of a black hole, while hawking radiation, which is how virtual particles manifests itself, is due to interactions at the event horizon of black holes, where the curvature of space is at a crucial point. This is also good proof to the non-uniformity of the medium of spacetime.

Singularities are matter. They are matter of very high density which are known to us by the non-uniformity of space time in which they exist. The singularity is certainly not boundless. Singularities are singular entities, hence the name. Where did you get that idea from? Secondly, by the implications of hawking's theories, black hole singularities naturally evaporate. When the mass and density disappears, the singularity disappears. The idea the singularity experiences no change is certainly wrong.

Conceptual mathematics Fz. You obviously didn't consider what I said about making a distinction between things of the mind, and things which can actually tangibly-exist in a world which makes sense.

Nope. Incorrect. There is a difference between imagined mathematics and extrapolations from known reality. If I look at a computer and say "the monitor is lit" and therefore the computer is "on". I am making a statement based on my experiences and the photons on my eyes. I am not using my imagination. String theory and similars are like this. It involves tying in groups of real data. It is not a thing of the mind, but the interaction of things of reality.

It has no choice. It's the only way to make sense of an existence in motion. Ultimately, there must be a medium for this motion. A uniform medium. An eternal, uniform medium.
But a uniform-medium is a singularity. And nothing can really move in a singularity. But if a Mind is present there, then motion can be perceived.

You are using the words, but have the wrong meaning. An uniform-medium is not a singularity. That is not at all it's scientific meaning. The medium is not uniform. We know this from reality. The medium is not eternal, and uniform does not imply eternal.
And you still have not realized that if your argument is correct, mind is also uniform and eternal. And hence existence is impossible.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
An empty-membrane = 'awareness'.

A sole entity (on his own) has no reflection because there is no surrounding. Cfr.in Kabbal (Kether: 1) needs the Two to be aware of the difference. In other words you need a mirror to have awareness.

What does a 2-dimensional membrane exist within, apart from the mind?

Where does the mind come from? Show me the creation system. Where come the circular energy from (needed for awareness) and how is it generated?

What exists beyond these membranes? Don't say "nothing", or that entity cannot truly exist. 'Nothing' cannot truly exist next to 'something'. Because something cannot touch nothing.

Why should there something behind the membrane?
If that something is manifolded membrane ... it's possible.
But you are desperate looking for motives to start with a mind that comes from start out of the blue (or has always existed). That's an assumption but not a fact like you present it. It's a 'believe', not a proof.
I have no problem with your believes but don't present as a fact.

That's how we can know that existence is boundless, ultimately.

Existence - if it has consciousness - needs boundaries to isolate separate areas to reflect itself and to create tension differences/polarities to create circulation [/B][/QUOTE]

It is impossible for a 2-dimensional membrane to actually exist in a tangible reality. Because it would have to exist next to nothing. And that makes no sense.

For you it makes no sense. Ask the Mind.

I have no idea what the mathematics of 2-dimensional membranes can predict. But I do know that they are not the ultimate explanation for the reality we perceive. Because they cannot rationally-explain their own existence, they won't be able to explain the reality we see, ultimately.

So you "know" in advance without checking. ;-)
And that's because you don't understand yet the manifolding system.

What medium does it stretch amongst? All motion requires a 'medium of motion'.

"Medium": nice ... this proves you know that separations must be made!

But ultimately, we must be left with an indivisible-medium - something which isn't moving within something else... but which is the source of all motion. And that's an indivisible medium.

Ah ... thus no separation? Isn't this new statement contradicting with your previous statement?
What is your argument to state this? What make you say: "And that's an indivisible medium"; an assumption again in which again you refer to a (separated) MEDIUM.

Thus, the logic of motion does apply. Motion cannot really occur in an external reality. It can only exist conceptually, through the human experience.

This should be a logic step? I think only You and the Mind understand the giant step you made. This is wishful logic.
I repeat: motion needs polarity or pressure differences and thus needs boundaries, thus needs divisions. Then it may stay internally.
Then: why can it only exist conceptually? What make you says this?
And: What is the human experience? It refers to a past, a process of knowledge building. Where and how happened that ? And what was that experience? Experiences of dreams? Where are those experiences stored?

;-)

Lifegazer try to be less absolutistic is your expressions and don't play for the MIND. We have our own. As we want to respect your you should respect ours and try to avoid statements which are not enough motivated.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
As I keep trying to tell you: the only reality you experience is an inner-reality. You've never experienced an out-of-your-awareness experience before. You've only had inner awareness of anything. So, your assumption is not justified, on those grounds.
Your position, philosophically, is untenable. And belief in an external-reality is purely religious. You have nothing rationally-solid to build it upon. Nothing.

Despite the fact the the only reality that is experienced in oneself is the inner reality, this does not mean that that is all of reality. I have for instance no idea what it means to be you, but this does not mean that you therefore have no reality of your own.
I am not a sun, and therefore I do not know what it is to be a sun, and as far as I can make sense of it, neither the sun knows that, cause it misses an "I" that can have sense of itself. Nevertheless the sun is part of reality, according to my mind.

Idealists claim that reality is made up of this subjective reality only. We - in our ordinary case - know that that is not the case. How else does one explain that even an idealist tries not to be droven over by a bus, for instance? Yet this is something, one can experience, and therefore should also be taken account of, when mentioning our sources of knowledge about the world.

The fact is that materialism can be the only solid basis for reality.
Idealists are being caged in their own created fixation of mind, which must be caused by a partial understanding of how the mind really works, and how it understands things. For people who do not understand this, let us for one moment try to assume that the claim, there is no outer reality (only the mindfull perception of it) would be true. What would that mean to us? How would "I" feel about that?

Our mind must be thought of to be able to function, because we have brains. Different parts of our brain perform different functions. For example one part of the brain is connected to the eyes, and transform the incoming data from the eyes into data that are meaningfull for the brain itself. And there are other parts that do this for hearing, and the other perceptory organs, and other mental and cognitive functions that are performed within the brain.
However, from the way and as far as we understand our own mind, it must be the case that somewhere in our brain, the awareness, not only of "external" data and "internal" data (your emotions, for instance, and inner thoughts) takes place, but also a central awareness of "I" comes into existence. This is of course crucial. Without it, you would not be aware of the fact that you are aware of things. Your brain would project your eye-sight and hearing experience into recognizable form, but if there would not be an "I" being aware of that data, this would be all utterly meaningfull.

The question which arisis is where this feeling of "I" arises. Is it a part of the brain, that shapes this awareness of "I". Or is it a function that is not really located in a part of the brain, but for which the brain is able of locating it's center of awareness around different parts of the brain. From own experience it can be know that you are able of concentration. For example when listening to music, you are able of concentrating on the hearing awareness completely.
Or any other cognitive activity in which you are involved. Does your center of awareness shift with the cognitive functione being performed?

In your mind you can create your own perceptions. This happens when sleeping for instance, but then the waking awareness is on a minimum, and some spontanious awarenesses occur in parts of the sleep. But it can also happen at will. The mind has of course (partial) knowledge about the outside world. This knowledge of outside objects is stored in some form in the brain. They can be called up from memory at will, and the brain can do transformations with it. For instance, think about a table. In your imagination an image of the table arises. Now you can try to change the image, by imagining different shapes, size, colours, design and material. Our brain can perform that perfectly for us. In short, the brain can portray us every possible image we might want to have of the outside world, without any bother if that corresponds to reality or not. But there are limitations to this, which are in itself quite logical.

For instance you can not look directly into your own eye. You can only do that using a mirror. You can lift things with your arms, yet you can not lift your own arm or body (only baron von Munchausen can do that). And so on.

For the brain for instance it would not be able to imagine itself not being there, cause this would imply that it has awareness of not having awareness, which is self contradicationary, in more or less the same way as the other examples of physical impossibilities of other organs.
So when you are very desperately trying to portray in your brain a picture of itself not being there, your mind will still come up with an image of reality, in which whatever minimal it can be that you are aware of, you are still aware of one-self, necessarily. If you stop have self-awareness... well then you are dead, but that you will not notice, since then you are no longer there or anywhere.

What we discussed here is that the "inner" workings of our mind, is some different as the working of the real world. For the real world, at some day, it will come true that you will no longer be there, and there was a time, in which you were not born. Internally, you do not have any representation for that (one never has, or can have, an actual experience of "not being there"), and belongs to the "impossibilities". In the real world, you can not take things in or out of existence. Internally however, this is done on the spot. You can imagine of anything that lacks existence in the real world, and can imagine of something not having existence, that in the real world definitately does have existence.

What do we define the world to be? Only our "inner" world of perceptions, although we know there is an "outside" world too?
This sounds suspicious, why limit the world to only the experience that exist in the brain? TRhe realioty means all of reality, and all that has existence. The inner world is subjective, but not entirely subjective. Suppose for example we dream. An outside observer can however detect in our eyemovement that we must be dreaming, although this observer does not know what we are dreaming about.

All of the claims that idealist make, are entirely limited to the "inner" world. In that "inner" world, it is entirely justified to say that all images, or projections we have of material things, are "created" by the "I", that by the way, cannot think about itself not existing. If we name this "I" God, then we have a perfect description of what the Idealist philosophy is about. It is entirely refrained to the inner workings of the brain, the inner world. Despite the fact that it is because of the brain that we can know the world, we know that the world is larger then our own brain.
Idealism is a philosophy that refrains and limits itself entirely to this inner world. It defines the world to be that of what we percieve within our brain. We know on perfeclty rational and solid grounds that not only "thoughts", "emotions", which belong to the inner world exist, but that also stars, bodies, and busses exist.
Materialism is not limiting itself to this "inner" world, although science can only deal to some extend with that, but to all of reality.

If you take the Idealist philosophy out of scope and context, and take their claims for real (God created matter, for instance) then you are completely lost. Cause idealism is not even referring to an outside world. It is talking only within the realms of inner experience, which are up to a certain extend of course real (that is: material) phenomena that are happening within one's brain.
Nowhere you can state that some God/mind that exists outside matter, "created" the world. It just can be stated the the central awareness one has in ones own brain (that function within the brain that makes it possible that the awarenesses that are created in different places of the brain) we can come aware of, or in other words it is the "I" that creates this awareness.

The problems arise however that the idealist philosophy is not just referring to itself as being a theory or concept of our internal functioning within our brain, it makes the false claim that apart from the awareness that exists in one's brain, which are of course part of reality, there really isn't something else.

We know from reality that things do not come and go into and out of existence "just like that". From our thoughts we know however, that we can create and delete images of reality, without any problem.
From reality we know, there was a time, we were not there, and there will be a time, we are no longer there.
Form our thoughts however, we can never find any clue regarding a time in which we were not there. All we are ever able to find, is the awareness that "I am there", and not a clue of data that concerns the state in which "I am not there". Quitte logical, cause it would be really strange if the opposite was true.
If you follow this line of thought, it explains that "God" (the self-wareness of "I") is eternal (or even timeless, and not bound to space), and the awareness themselves were not, but were "created" one time. From reality, we know however that the world wasn't created, but exists in time and changes in time, and is endless.