Argument for God(s) Second Edition - please critique

[viole]

This was original presented as a 4 premise argument entitled the Argument for Set. I think you'll find this version much more flushed out.

1. The external universe (EU) is made of physical material and bound by physical laws.

2. The internal universe (IU), such as the mind, imagination, abstract thought, etc, is not made of physical matter and not bound to by physical laws of the EU.

3. So, the properties of the EU and IU must be different.

4. As the properties of the EU and IU are different, one cannot be reduced into the other.

5. Due to #4, the EU and IU must be separate things not reliant on each other.

6. Based on #1-5, the IU must be explained by something immaterial and not bound by physical laws. Further, there must be a logical explanation as to how the EU and IU became mixed as seen in human beings.

7. The EU shows no sign of conscious thought, as it is eternally bound to its laws.

8. Because of #3-6, the IU cannot rise within the EU, it does not arise by chance.

9. #8 implies that the mixing of IU and EU was intentionally caused by something (as per #6) immaterial and not bound to physical laws.

10. A conscious thing that willfully interacts with the material world to create humanity as we know it, which is immaterial and not bound to physical laws, is a very common description of gods from every single tradition.

Therefore, what people call god(s) must exist to explain the mixing of EU and IU, as neither can arise from the other and are separate substances.

Below is the original argument.

1. Something that can go against the mechanistic flow of nature is unnatural.

2. The human mind can – to varying degrees – go against the mechanistic flow of nature.

3. So, the human mind – even if just an aspect of it – must be unnatural.

4. For nature to create something unnatural would be a logical contradiction.

Therefore, the must be something separate from nature to explain the human mind.

Well, premise 2 renders the whole argument circular. It assumes naturalism false in the premise, without obvious evidence.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Actually, the EU is only conceptualized through the IU.

If you believe in duality. But there is no evidence that the IU is distinct from the EU. All the IU is is a mass relay of neurons in the EU you have described.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

2. The internal universe (IU), such as the mind, imagination, abstract thought, etc, is not made of physical matter and not bound to by physical laws of the EU.

I can see two ways to interpret this:

- brain activity is not subject to physical laws.
- thought is not brain activity.

Which one did you intend? Or did you intend something else?

 

[1137]

I can see two ways to interpret this:

- brain activity is not subject to physical laws.
- thought is not brain activity.

Which one did you intend? Or did you intend something else?

The latter.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The latter.

Okay... defend your claim. Until it's demonstrated to be true, your argument as a whole fails.

 

[1137]

Okay... defend your claim. Until it's demonstrated to be true, your argument as a whole fails.

Why? I'm assuming the default position, the null hypothesis.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why? I'm assuming the default position, the null hypothesis.

You don't have a firm grasp on how logical argument works, do you?

The default response to a claim that has no evidence is something like "it may or may not be true, and we have no reason to accept it as true."

When you leave a premise in your argument as "this may or may not be true", then your conclusion also may or may not be true.

... IOW, you argument is as useless as no argument at all.

To use a premise in an argument, you need to demonstrate "this MUST be true", which can't be a default.

Does that help you understand?

 

[jonathan180iq]

As the argument suggests, the IU did not arise from the physical EU.

What is the IU without the mind that creates it? Does it even exist? How do you know?

(This is what I mean when I suggested that you immediately shot yourself in the foot.)
Your entire argument is based on perceptions from this Internal Universe of yours. It dies the moment that you do. Using your argument, god ceases to exist the moment that you stop perceiving it/him/whatever. That's an argument that you don't want to make.

God, as an idea, can certainly be passed down from generation to generation, giving the illusion in some circles that it's an a priori conclusion. And I'll even admit that there may very well be some physiological predispositions to such a type of belief given our biology and shared experiences. But that does very little to augment your argument here.

This assumes that materialism is the answer and then fills in the premises. Unless the solution to the mind-body problem can be shown to be materialism, we have no reason to jump to the assumption that the physical processes are creating the mind. If anything, it's a leap in the first place to assume that premise #1 is real, but I currently accept the existence of an objective universe on faith.

Agreed - I'm just taking premise #1 and rolling with it. I can observe the Universe, and compare my observations with other people, so I will assume that it exists outside of myself.

But everything else falls apart after that...

Again I'll ask you to please show me a mind that did not have a physical process preceding it.

There can no more be an IU before the EU than there can be a creek bed before there is a creek.
You accept that creeks form creek beds, I imagine. Would you ever try to argue that creek beds form creeks? That's what you're doing here, and it's foolish.

Every single byte of information that you and I are sharing right now is entirely dependent on physical preceding processes, be it the keyboards that we are typing on or brains that we are using to think these thoughts... These ideas that we are sharing are a result of material input. The formation of our bodies, as a suitable stand-in for the very first bodies or minds, are a result of processes within the EU, my friend. There's just no way around the argument unless you can, again, show me an IU which precedes an EU.

 

[1137]

You don't have a firm grasp on how logical argument works, do you?

The default response to a claim that has no evidence is something like "it may or may not be true, and we have no reason to accept it as true."

When you leave a premise in your argument as "this may or may not be true", then your conclusion also may or may not be true.

... IOW, you argument is as useless as no argument at all.

To use a premise in an argument, you need to demonstrate "this MUST be true", which can't be a default.

Does that help you understand?

Self existence is axiomatic. You can't deny the claim "I exist" like you can't deny "A is A". This self is immaterial, in that you can never see someone else's "I", technically you can't know it exists. All things in the external world get processed through the internal self, meaning that material reductionism is a logically unsound starting point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Self existence is axiomatic.

Meaning that you aren't going to justify your assumptions?

You can't deny the claim "I exist" like you can't deny "A is A".

Care to fill in the jump from "I exist" to "thoughts are not brain activity"? I don't see why the one necessarily follows from the other.

This self is immaterial, in that you can never see someone else's "I", technically you can't know it exists. All things in the external world get processed through the internal self, meaning that material reductionism is a logically unsound starting point.

Hang on: the external world gets processed through the internal self? You said that they don't rely on each other.

... but we're getting ahead of ourselves. Best to deal with the logical problems with statement #2 before moving on to the ones after.

 

[1137]

Meaning that you aren't going to justify your assumptions?


Care to fill in the jump from "I exist" to "thoughts are not brain activity"? I don't see why the one necessarily follows from the other.


Hang on: the external world gets processed through the internal self? You said that they don't rely on each other.

... but we're getting ahead of ourselves. Best to deal with the logical problems with statement #2 before moving on to the ones after.

To deny two you have to reject an axiom. Are you willing to do that?

 

[McBell]

To deny two you have to reject an axiom. Are you willing to do that?

Yes.
Because you have not demonstrated 2 to be correct, let alone an axiom.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To deny two you have to reject an axiom. Are you willing to do that?

I don't accept your premise, if that's what you mean. What you call your premise is irrelevant.

 

[1137]

I don't accept your premise, if that's what you mean. What you call your premise is irrelevant.

Lol it's not a matter of what I name it. Feel free to show a single example of knowledge or action free from the "self" or it's perception.

 

[1137]

Yes.
Because you have not demonstrated 2 to be correct, let alone an axiom.

2 is demonstrated in you being unable to physically show me a single thing from your IU. The axiom is that the self exists. Add these two together and you're reductionism has no foot to stand on.

 

[Koldo]

2 is demonstrated in you being unable to physically show me a single thing from your IU. The axiom is that the self exists. Add these two together and you're reductionism has no foot to stand on.

But how do you substantiate that the IU is not bound by the physical laws ?

 

[McBell]

But how do you substantiate that the IU is not bound by the physical laws ?

He merely declares it an axiom...

 

[1137]

But how do you substantiate that the IU is not bound by the physical laws ?

Because there's nothing even close to an explanation as to how the mind may arise from matter.

He merely declares it an axiom...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lol it's not a matter of what I name it. Feel free to show a single example of knowledge or action free from the "self" or it's perception.

Shifting the burden of proof. Not my problem.

BTW: you still haven't shown that your conclusion (i.e. that thoughts are not brain activity) has anything to do with your "axiom".

 

[McBell]

Because there's nothing even close to an explanation as to how the mind may arise from matter.

So basically, in a nut shell, your reply is "you cannot prove it is?"