Archived

Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

Read 6307 times

Sympathy88

  • *
  • 4 Posts
    • View Profile
An Unembodied Mind?
« on: July 25, 2013, 08:30:41 am »
This is my first post ever in this forum.
Similar question has been raised in "Objections to the LCA", but I didn't find the answer satisfactory.
1. How do we know an unembodied mind can cause anything? Isn't that just a blind guess? I concur that if an unembodied mind cannot cause anything, then we don't have a cause for our universe.
2. And what if someone says that even embodied mind isn't the initial cause, but rather the brain acts upon mind beforehand? Isn't that a possibility? Sort of like determinism then, right?
You can also point me to Craig's articles, if this topic exists somewhere already. Thank you very much for your answers.

1

ontologicalme

  • Guest
Re: An Unembodied Mind?
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2013, 09:21:16 am »
This is my first post ever in this forum.
Similar question has been raised in "Objections to the LCA", but I didn't find the answer satisfactory.
1. How do we know an unembodied mind can cause anything? Isn't that just a blind guess? I concur that if an unembodied mind cannot cause anything, then we don't have a cause for our universe.
2. And what if someone says that even embodied mind isn't the initial cause, but rather the brain acts upon mind beforehand? Isn't that a possibility? Sort of like determinism then, right?
You can also point me to Craig's articles, if this topic exists somewhere already. Thank you very much for your answers.

I think the argument presupposes dualism, perhaps draws from intuition and personal experience too. Not sure.

On your second question, there other options too, there is eliminativism, when there are not mental states , epiphenomenalism ( that minds do not cause anything ), functionalism, anomalous monism, and so on.

But honestly, if an army of neuroscientists, and materialist philosophers after hundreds of analysis, told me I  can not raise my arm when I want to, that is it all a bare mechanism, or that I don´t believe that I can raise my arm when I want to, and even more that I am not really conscious, that it is all an illusion, I would still not think: mmm, maybe they are right, because I know they are not.

But this is just the way I see it.

wellcome.

2

Sympathy88

  • *
  • 4 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: An Unembodied Mind?
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2013, 09:56:40 am »
Thank you! Anyone else?
How do we know an unembodied mind can cause anything?

3

ginobli2311

  • **
  • 427 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: An Unembodied Mind?
« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2013, 02:34:08 pm »
Thank you! Anyone else?
How do we know an unembodied mind can cause anything?

We don't know.  There is no evidence that a mind can exist without a brain...and no evidence that such a mind can cause anything.

4

Asking_A_Question

  • Guest
Re: An Unembodied Mind?
« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2013, 02:39:43 pm »
Thank you! Anyone else?
How do we know an unembodied mind can cause anything?

We don't know.  There is no evidence that a mind can exist without a brain...and no evidence that such a mind can cause anything.

Well that's exactly what these arguments show.  There's also no reason to think that a mind cannot exist without a brain.  That seems like carbon chauvinism to me.  As to causing things, that's again what the arguments about and it's philosophically possible: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/choose-your-own-topic/investigating-interaction-problem-6022463.0.html.

5

joppe

  • **
  • 409 Posts
  • I am a protestant
    • View Profile
Re: An Unembodied Mind?
« Reply #5 on: August 03, 2013, 05:58:46 am »
This objection also applies to Kalam.
Usually I say:

I am not claiming that a mind exists necessarily without a brain. The default position is that something CAN be true and that something CAN NOT be true. However, the analyzes concludes that the cause must be a personal agent.
Saying you 'merely lack belief' in God while arguing for naturalism is the same as saying you 'don't have a political opinion' while praising a political party.

6

Sympathy88

  • *
  • 4 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: An Unembodied Mind?
« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2013, 08:59:10 am »
This objection also applies to Kalam.
Usually I say:

I am not claiming that a mind exists necessarily without a brain. The default position is that something CAN be true and that something CAN NOT be true. However, the analyzes concludes that the cause must be a personal agent.
Joppe,
I liked your reply the most. But thanks to everyone that helps me understand this.
Correct me if I'm wrong here. We are in a position where we are agnostic about the reality of an unembodied mind, right? As agnostics we say it is possible such a thing exists. But the only thing that could cause the universe to exist is an unembodied mind. And since the universe exists, an unembodied mind must exist.
Is there a flaw in my reasoning? Does WLC talk/write about this polemic on unembodied mind here on site? Guide me to the material?:)
Thank you all and God bless.

7

Pieter

  • ***
  • 1768 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: An Unembodied Mind?
« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2013, 07:41:49 am »
This objection also applies to Kalam.
Usually I say:

I am not claiming that a mind exists necessarily without a brain. The default position is that something CAN be true and that something CAN NOT be true. However, the analyzes concludes that the cause must be a personal agent.
Joppe,
I liked your reply the most. But thanks to everyone that helps me understand this.
Correct me if I'm wrong here. We are in a position where we are agnostic about the reality of an unembodied mind, right? As agnostics we say it is possible such a thing exists. But the only thing that could cause the universe to exist is an unembodied mind. And since the universe exists, an unembodied mind must exist.
Is there a flaw in my reasoning? Does WLC talk/write about this polemic on unembodied mind here on site? Guide me to the material?:)
Thank you all and God bless.

Here is one: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-mind-behind-the-universe

One interesting quote:

Quote from: William Lane Craig
I trust it is evident that my argument is thus actually an argument for dualism, rather than an argument presupposing dualism. The non-theist cannot simply assume the falsity of dualism, any more than I could simply assume the unreality of abstract objects, for that would be begging the question against dualism.
Pieter van Leeuwen

8

philtime

  • Guest
Re: An Unembodied Mind?
« Reply #8 on: September 20, 2013, 09:05:58 am »
If the universe began to exist from nothingness (...except God...), and God is an unembodied mind, and the universe needs a cause, then a pretty good case can be made that an unembodied mind caused the universe to begin ;)

The trouble of course is establishing the premise that the universe itself needs a cause and that it began from a state of nothingness.

9

Seeker

  • ***
  • 1024 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: An Unembodied Mind?
« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2013, 11:07:09 am »
If the universe began to exist from nothingness (...except God...), and God is an unembodied mind, and the universe needs a cause, then a pretty good case can be made that an unembodied mind caused the universe to begin ;)

The trouble of course is establishing the premise that the universe itself needs a cause and that it began from a state of nothingness.

I and and everyone I talk to don't really see the problem that the Universe had a cause? You say a "state of nothingness", but there were no states of anything. Nothing is literally no thing. So if matter can somehow pop out into existence from nothing and by nothing then we need to burn our science textbooks. Because, science presupposes that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Why do you think theoretical physics is looking for a ToE? They are trying to get one step closer to finding what caused the big bang. Honestly, if it wasn't a matter of God, would you still doubt the premise?
I will not lose.

10

philtime

  • Guest
Re: An Unembodied Mind?
« Reply #10 on: September 20, 2013, 05:16:11 pm »
Quote from: Seeker
I and and everyone I talk to don't really see the problem that the Universe had a cause?

That's fine, but you can't justify that the universe needs a cause with logic (causal relations aren't logically necessary) or experience.

Quote
You say a "state of nothingness", but there were no states of anything. Nothing is literally no thing. So if matter can somehow pop out into existence from nothing and by nothing then we need to burn our science textbooks.

How do you know that nothing preceded the Big Bang? Furthermore, how do you know that everything needs a cause?

Quote
Honestly, if it wasn't a matter of God, would you still doubt the premise?

I think so. Even theists (Kant) have doubted it.

11

Seeker

  • ***
  • 1024 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: An Unembodied Mind?
« Reply #11 on: September 20, 2013, 05:35:22 pm »
Quote from: Seeker
I and and everyone I talk to don't really see the problem that the Universe had a cause?

That's fine, but you can't justify that the universe needs a cause with logic (causal relations aren't logically necessary) or experience.

Quote
You say a "state of nothingness", but there were no states of anything. Nothing is literally no thing. So if matter can somehow pop out into existence from nothing and by nothing then we need to burn our science textbooks.

How do you know that nothing preceded the Big Bang? Furthermore, how do you know that everything needs a cause?

Quote
Honestly, if it wasn't a matter of God, would you still doubt the premise?

I think so. Even theists (Kant) have doubted it.

Who says that you can't justify it with logic? In my opinion it is metaphysically impossible for something to come from nothing. So you think it's more plausible than not that the Universe didn't have a cause? If so, why? Craig has given arguments on we should find the first premise plausible. As far as we know, there was nothing before the big bang. Unless you postulate some multiverse then there was nothing before the beginning of the Universe. It's funny how you say "how do you know there was nothing before the big bang" and yet reject the first premise of the Kalam.
I will not lose.

12

philtime

  • Guest
Re: An Unembodied Mind?
« Reply #12 on: September 21, 2013, 10:05:35 am »
Quote from: Seeker
Who says that you can't justify it with logic? In my opinion it is metaphysically impossible for something to come from nothing. So you think it's more plausible than not that the Universe didn't have a cause? If so, why?

For your first question, it's logically conceivable that a universe in which no cause and effect exists -- so causal relations aren't logically necessary. I understand you think that it's metaphysically impossible that something can come into existence without a cause, but you need to justify your metaphysical assumptions. Logic won't help much, and experience can only lend support of causal necessity between objects of experience.

Quote
Craig has given arguments on we should find the first premise plausible. As far as we know, there was nothing before the big bang. Unless you postulate some multiverse then there was nothing before the beginning of the Universe. It's funny how you say "how do you know there was nothing before the big bang" and yet reject the first premise of the Kalam.

I have no idea why you think that's funny. In both cases, I'm pointing out that you have very little reason to believe the premises.

13
Re: An Unembodied Mind?
« Reply #13 on: September 21, 2013, 11:20:43 am »
The standard model does show that before the initial singularity or 'before' the space-time barrier there is no thing. Nothing spacial and no time. The word 'before' here is used not to refer to temporal priority but to causal priority.

Dr. Craig would argue that a universe without a cause is logically inconsistent. These three statements:

1) something cannot come from nothing.
2) everything that begins to exist has a cause.
3) everything that exists has an explaination for its resistance.

Are fundamental not only to science but to everyday reasoning. To deny the first premise would be to deny reason, this wound leave theism as the more probable and rational world view. Personally I find it hard the believe that naturists and atheists would even dream of denying the first premise. The 2 or 3 premises would be much safer to attack from an atheist's view.

14

philtime

  • Guest
Re: An Unembodied Mind?
« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2013, 05:58:18 pm »
Quote from: 111raybartlett
Are fundamental not only to science but to everyday reasoning. To deny the first premise would be to deny reason, this wound leave theism as the more probable and rational world view.Personally I find it hard the believe that naturists and atheists would even dream of denying the first premise. The 2 or 3 premises would be much safer to attack from an atheist's view.

Many philosophers have denied that causality follows from reason (Kant and Hume for instance)... but you are entitled to be surprised at whatever you like ;)

In any case, there's nothing contrary to reason to suggest that not everything needs a cause. Experience tells us that material objects require material causes -- but to deny that causes ought to exist logically isn't very absurd.