God and the Mind-Body Problem: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » God and the Mind-Body Problem » God and the Mind-Body Problem

God and the Mind-Body Problem

aufbau87
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2008
Location: Southern California

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 62

Posted 07/17/09 - 03:16 PM: Subject: God and the Mind-Body Problem	#1
I was recently listening to a William Lane Craig podcast, and he was discussing the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Basically, the argument doesn't, by itself, prove God exists, or is the cause of the universe. Here's the argument: (1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. (2) The universe began to exist. (3) Thus, the universe has a cause. To progress the argument further, assuming the premises are true or more probable than not, Craig gives us the following dilemma: (4) Either the cause of the universe is a nonphysical, mindless object or is a nonphysical, personal object. He argues that the only nonphysical, mindless objects that we know of are things like sets; objects that are causally effete. The only other option is that a nonphysical, personal object is the cause of our universe, so therefore: (5) God (a nonphysical, personal object) is the cause of the universe. This strikes me as odd, though. What independent reason do we have to suppose (i) there exists minds, defined as nonphysical and personal objects, and (ii) that they are not causally effete, in contrast to abstract objects like sets? Any thoughts?

Angra Mainyu
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 20, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 126

Posted 07/17/09 - 04:21 PM:	#2
I think he's confused by talking about sets as "nonphysical, mindless objects", or objects at all - in the sense of "object" used in ontology. But that aside, the argument seems to rely on obscurity. What is said to be caused or uncaused are events - something happens, and we ask for the causes of the event in question. Asking for the cause of the existence of X (for some X) seems to be a special case of that: it's like asking for the cause of the event "X is formed", or "X comes into existence", etc. A first question here is whether we know of any uncaused events, and the answer is we might. That a radioactive nucleus decayed at some time t1 instead of, say, t2, is believed to be uncaused by many physicists. His assumption that "whatever begins to exist has a cause" seems to be an assumption like "all events of the form 'X comes into existence' are caused". That assumption does not seem to be more warranted than "every event has a cause" (which is on shaky grounds), but if we assume that every event has a cause, then that rules out a first uncaused event, so whatever "formation of the universe" is, whatever caused that event must have been caused by something else, etc. If, on the other hand, we make no such assumption; if we allow for uncaused events, then it's not clear why we should assume that all events of the type "X comes into existence" would all have to be caused. But if we assume that all events of that type are caused (but, again, this seems unwarranted), then the question is: what does he mean by "universe"? In other words, what is the event whose cause he's looking for? Why would the cause have to be "nonphysical"? (whatever that means)

TempletonEsquire
Irrationally Biased

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 05, 2009
Location: Close To Nil

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 315

Posted 07/17/09 - 05:36 PM:	#3
Yeah, that also came to my mind, "What proof is there that the cause was non-physical?" This line of questioning for me mostly comes from my belief in the cyclical universe, where the cause of our universe is similar to its life. Which by no means is provable either, so what right do other theories have over mine?

Angra Mainyu
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 20, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 126

Posted 07/17/09 - 06:02 PM:	#4
I think it's worse than that: It's not clear to me what a non-physical object would be, but if we're talking about the causes and effects, we're talking about events. We can say, for instance, that the bullet caused the death of a person, but more precisely, we would say that the cause was the impact of the bullet - or the loss of blood produced by it, etc. I think that (apart from the other objections I presented earlier) the questions here are: 1) What's the event "formation of the universe", whose cause we're trying to find out? Craig would have to clarify what he means by "universe" and then by "formation of the universe", "the universe's coming into existence", etc. 2) What's the event proposed as a cause, and why? As far as I can tell, Craig's argument doesn't seem to come even close to addressing those questions.

jgberg
Gone Fishin'

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 18, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 07/18/09 - 10:48 AM:	#5
I think that the biggest problem is assuming that the universe was in fact created. It seems impossible (at least to me) that an event could have occured that created the universe. Events as we know them all exist in the context of the universe. Let me go further into the description on an event: An event is an instantanious occurance that creates a change in the status of the universe from what it was before the event, to what it is after the event. For example, my cat knocks over a glass of milk. This is the event. The status before the event is that the glass of milk was standing, and the status afterward is that the glass of milk is now knocked over. I would be interested in how you could disagree with my definition for an event. Now, to apply this definition of event to the creation of the universe. Nothing existed before the creation of the universe. So there is no pre-universe status. That is my biggest problem with the idea that the universe was created. In order for something to be created (a creation "event"), the creation has to have a pre-creation status. The universe does not seem to have one (although it may be possible to imagine one, thoughts?). So in my mind, the universe has to have always existed (The universe could have existed in a different form, a pssiblity for pre-creation status). But the idea that the universe at one point did not exist, and an event created the universe into is current form (atoms and energy and such) does not seem to hold too much water for me. Thoughts and comments (especially criticism) are appreciated.

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.