A cosmological argument for theism looks something like this:
Everyone intuits the causal principle that every effect/event requires a sufficient cause. What, then, is the cause of the universe? What is causally sufficient to account for the observed effect? Since the effect includes time, space, and matter, the cause must be timeless, non-spatial, and immaterial, not to mention intelligent and powerful to account for the specified complexity of the universe. Only two things fit this description: abstract objects, or an unembodied mind. Since abstract objects are causally impotent by definition (they do not stand in causal relations with concrete objects), they cannot be the cause of the universe. That leaves us with an unembodied mind, who is a personal agent. This makes sense. Not only are we are intimately acquainted with the idea of immaterial minds causing physical effects, but it also makes sense of the design and order we see in the universe.
In response to this argument, some think we should reject the notion of a disembodied mind on the grounds that it is too abstract; i.e. it is something we are not acquainted with, and hence have no reason to believe is possible. There are at least three reasons to reject this line of thinking.
First, there is nothing logically incoherent about a disembodied mind. The notion may not be familiar to us, but we ought not confuse familiarity with plausibility. A person raised in the remote parts of the jungle has never seen ice, but his lack of familiarity with ice does not mean the existence of ice is implausible. Neither would it constitute good grounds on which for him to reject evidence being presented to him that ice exists. Likewise, just because we are not personally acquainted with the idea of an unembodied mind does not mean an unembodied mind does not, or cannot exist. Neither does it constitute good grounds on which to reject the evidence being presented for the existence of such a mind. The cosmological argument provides warrant for believing in something we may not have thought probable otherwise.
Second, even if we are not personally familiar with unembodied minds, we are very familiar with the concept of mind (each of us has one), and its causal powers. In other words, even if the specific form of the mind in question is unfamiliar to us, the function of a mind very familiar to us: minds exercise causal agency. And I see no reason to think this capacity is dependent on our mind being embodied. The property of causal agency belongs to the mind, not the body, so there is no reason to think an unembodied mind is too abstract a concept to be the cause of our universe.
One might respond that it would be impossible for an unembodied mind (immaterial) to cause effects in the physical realm. This must be false. Why? Because our minds cause effects in the physical realm all the time, and our minds are an immaterial entity (it may stand in a causal relationship with the brain, but it cannot be reduced to the brain/physicality). The only difference between our minds and an unembodied mind is embodiment, but I fail to see how embodiment is significant. The fact remains that human minds, as well as a divine mind, are immaterial in nature, and a source of causation which produces effects in the physical world.
A case could even be made that human minds do not have to be embodied, and indeed, become disembodied upon death. I am thinking in particular of empirical studies into near-death experiences. While many of the experiences are unverifiable, a small minority are. And in these instances, there are examples of continued consciousness, even after brain death. In fact, in some cases the person is conscious of things happening outside of the room where their body lies (things they could not have possibly known, even if their body were functioning normally). So I don’t think the idea of an unembodied mind is abstract, or that we are not acquainted with this. Even if most of us are unacquainted with it experientially, we are acquainted with the concept, and there is nothing incoherent about the concept. Strange, maybe, but incoherent, no.
Finally, those who wish to reject both abstract objects and an unembodied mind as the cause of the universe need to offer an alternative. Given the criteria, I cannot fathom what that could be. If no other alternative is possible, then they must either reject the causal principle and say the universe popped into existence uncaused, or else embrace an eternal universe. Given the fact that the causal principle is one of our strongest metaphysical intuitions and enjoys undisputed empirical confirmation, and given the fact that the scientific evidence and philosophical arguments against an eternal universe are more than compelling, neither is a good option. We have good reason, then, to think the cause of the universe was a powerful, intelligent, immaterial, non-spatial, eternal mind. This is an apt description of what most theists have traditionally meant by the term “God.”
November 9, 2008 at 7:37 am
Well said. Have you had the opportunity to watch “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” by Ben Stein? It is an excellent work. The scientists that were interviewed didn’t deal with the causation of the universe as much as how life was seeded or how life evolved. At one point Professor Hawkins argued that aliens seeded life on earth. Mr. Hawkins and most of the scientists interviewed were atheists. All of the said evolution contributed to their decision that there was not a God. Which is a form of religious teachings that is allowed in school under the guise of science.
Question: Does the unembodied mind contribute to adaptations or evolving of species?
LikeLike
November 9, 2008 at 7:38 am
Correction: Mr. Hawkins didn’t argued that aliens seeded life but that it was a possibility that aliens seeded life.
LikeLike
November 9, 2008 at 7:56 pm
cs,
Yes, I did. I think you are referring to Richard Dawkins.
Is God (the unembodied mind) involved in the evolution of species? I tend to think not, because I see no good evidence to believe evolution is occurring on the macro-level. The only evolution we see is on the micro-level, and genetic variability and mutations fully explain it.
Jason
LikeLike
November 10, 2008 at 8:26 am
My bad it is Dawkins. Opps!
Oh and while I am thinking about it. Thank you for your article http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/trinoneness.htm . It is awesome!
LikeLike
November 13, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Dawkins didn’t argue that seeding occurred, just that it’s a remote possibility that cannot be eliminated by science.
By making that concession, though, scientists are admitting something else. Life could have started on another planet and been transferred here, and thus one shouldn’t be excluded from the debate for arguing that life might not have started in a primordial soup.
That life could also have been created by an intelligent life, which itself probably evolved on another planet in another solar system.
The question is how somebody can claim that Intelligent Design is simply religion. Clearly, as Dawkins concedes, an atheist can believe in Intelligent Design. There is no reason why the designer needs to be supernatural in any way.
LikeLike
November 14, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Arthur,
cs clarified that point as well.
You’re right, ID is a scientific theory, not a religious theory. The unknown desingning intelligence postulated by ID theory does not necessarily translate into a supernatural being. While the designing intelligence of ID is clearly superhuman, it is not necessarily supernatural. All ID can tell us is that it is intelligent.
Dawkins may be willing to admit that life on Earth was designed by other intelligent agents in the universe (intermediate intelligence), but he is not willing to admit that the first life was designed by an intelligent agent (ultimate intelligence). As Dawkins made clear, the aliens who might have created or seeded life on earth had to have originated by some evolutionary process.
I think the reason Dawkins and his ilk reject ID is because ID is not limited to the issue of biological design on earth, but incorporates cosmic design as well. They put on their philosophy hats, and recognize that only a supernatural designer could be responsible for cosmic design. Why? Because the existence of the designer must precede their design. It is physically and logically impossible for a natural designer to precede the origin of the natural world. If the universe is designed, whoever designed it has to exist outside it (i.e. supernatural, in the literal sense of the word as being “beyond the natural”). That looks too much like God for them, so they reject ID because of its philosophical implications.
Jason
LikeLike
December 13, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Great post! But I have long struggled with the intellectual concept of how a discarnate entity could influence matter. What did you mean by your statement that, “our [immaterial] minds cause effects in the physical realm all the time”?? What is the evidence for this and how does that work?
LikeLike
December 19, 2009 at 9:04 pm
D,
There is a distinction between brains and minds. Minds are immaterial, and brains are material. I am of the persuasion that persons are essentially souls/minds. In the case of humans, we are embodied minds.
There is constant interaction between our immaterial self and our bodies. For example, our soul uses our eyes to see (eyes do not see anything in and of themselves). Likewise, our mind uses our brain to think (our brain does not think in and of itself). Our body is the physical organ our soul uses to interact with the material world.
If our minds are immaterial, and if they interact with our brains/bodies, then clearly it is possible for immaterial entities like minds to cause effects in the physical realm. Our minds interact with matter and cause effects in the material world all the time. Every time we decide to stand up there is an interaction of the immaterial with the material. My point was that ff human minds can cause effects in the physical world, why think a divine mind could not?
Jason
LikeLike
December 22, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Jason,
I understand your point now and think in largely the same terms. Exactly how this occurs though is an intriguing mystery. For example, we can be experiencing “heartache” so to speak, which can result in physically destructive ramifications. Or we can almost tangibly feel the presence of God (or demons) at times. But the question is where is point of interaction between the two–is it not so much interaction as a firing of information. This idea would integrate well with the holographic theory of reality.
Another point. It is interesting to ponder how exactly we can “see” or hear visions God transmits to us. I believe this explains the mystery of why we have the psychedelic tryptamine dimethyltryptamine in our brains (possibly the pineal gland). God must have put it there so he could cause it to flush our brains and use the psychedelic (if you will) experience to convey messages to us of a supernatural nature. It is also theorized that this is what enables us to dream. Just some thoughts and another example.
LikeLike
December 2, 2011 at 8:20 am
Awful, specially when you take the side against mainstream science in regards with evolution.
The problem with defining God as the cause of the universe:
1- To explain the known it relies on the unknown. If the evidence has shown than all natural things began to exist so they require a cause, can we by evidence say that there are supernatural things that don’t begin to exist so don’t require a cause? Can we say that immaterial things can give rise to material things? Along those lines why not say then that material things could giving rise to immaterial ones? The bottom line is that all this requires giving properties to something that’s unknown.
If you say that we don’t need an explanation of the explanation, that statement would work in science if we are talking about natural explanation, because science is about explanations of the natural world and you cannot use science to test “supernatural world”… So if you jump from a scientific explanation to a non scientific one then you have jumped to a place where no scientific refutation is possible.
2- The lack of evidence is not evidence of absence, but based on the evidence we have, the mind requires a physical body, and we have no evidence of an unembodied mind and that is one idea we cannot disprove.
3- If time is a concept bound to the universe and time is relational, then there is no time prior time.
4- Intermediate causes: Supposing a rational being created this universe. This being could be a natural being from another universe, who could be non-personal, himself created by let’s say, a supernatural being, or maybe an universe created by an alien programmer, the universe being an operative system and things in it are pieces of software on that environment. All sorts of options are open, not just a single supernatural personal moral entity creating the universe.
5- If the idea of an infinite past doens’t make sense in this universe due to the problem of an actual infinite by successive addition, why would in mathematical terms the problem go away when applied to the prior existence of the universe?
LikeLike
January 10, 2012 at 9:56 am
[…] viaIs an Unembodied Mind too Abstract a Notion to be the Cause of the Universe? « Theo-sophical Rumina…. […]
LikeLike
January 10, 2012 at 9:56 am
[…] viaIs an Unembodied Mind too Abstract a Notion to be the Cause of the Universe? « Theo-sophical Rumina…. […]
LikeLike
January 23, 2012 at 2:14 pm
1. Don’t scientists also do the same when they appeal to unknown, unobserved entities in particle physics to explain the phenomena they can observe? Just because the hypothetical entities are thought to be physical in nature does not mean they are any less unknown to us.
You also seem to miss the fact that the principle that “everything that begins to exist requires a cause” is not a physical principle, but a metaphysical one. There is no rational reason to suppose that anything could come into being without a cause, whether it is a material or immaterial entity. Any contingent reality requires a cause to come into being. When it comes to the origin of the universe, we are dealing with a contingent entity, and therefore it needs a cause. And that cause cannot be a material entity because prior to the origin of the universe, there were no material entities. So one is either forced to give up the most basic metaphysical principles there are (from nothing, nothing comes; contingent entities require an external cause) and conclude that the universe just popped into existence from absolutely nothing uncaused, or conclude that it had a non-material cause. And it is obvious which of the two is more rational.
2. I’m not sure I understand this one. When it comes to scientific explanations, there is usually an explanation (E2) of the explanation (E1), although we do not need to know what the explanation of the explanation is in order to know that the explanation (E1) is valid. But unless there is an infinite regress, we will eventually come to a place where there is no longer an explanation for the explanation. As an atheist, you may be willing to terminate the regress at the origin of the universe and just say “there is no explanation,” but this will not do because the universe is a contingent entity. Why should there be only one contingent entity that is without an explanation? One needs to justify why no explanation is necessary. There is none that does not beg the question in favor of atheism. Theists, however, can explain the origin of the universe and also stop the infinite regress of explanations. God brought the universe into being, but He Himself doe not need an explanation/cause because He is an eternal and necessary being (as opposed to contingent).
3. You beg the question here because the kalam cosmological argument itself is evidence for the possibility of a disembodied mind. Also, based on the evidence in peer-reviewed literature concerning near death experiences, I think there is good evidence that even the human mind does not require a physical body, even though our normal embodied experience is that the mind and brain experience a tight unity such that what happens to one affects the other.
4. I agree that there is no time prior to time. If you think this means God could not create the universe because there would be no time for a Creator to act, see https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/stephen-hawking-god-could-not-create-the-universe-because-there-was-no-time-for-him-to-do-so/.
5. No, it is not possible for the creator of our universe to be material since that would require that this material creator exist prior to material reality, which is nonsense. Now, if you adopt a multiverse you could say that someone or something from another universe within the multiverse is responsible for creating our particular universe, but this just pushes the problem back one step because you still have to answer where that other universe came from. Eventually we are pushed back to the origin of the multiverse itself, and the problem re-emerges. And whatever caused the multiverse would have to have the same kind of properties that would be needed for a cause of our universe if our universe was the embodiment of all physical reality: immaterial, eternal, spaceless, powerful, intelligent, and personable.
6. I’m not sure I understand your point.
Jason
LikeLike
January 23, 2012 at 3:10 pm
Vilenkin. Borde and Guth dsiposed only cyclical universew without the Big Bang. So, in accordance with the law of conservation, the quantum fields are the eternal source whence everything else arises, and so Existence is eternal.It’s groundless then to query whence they come!
God has no explanatory power. Nature needs no such being to explain it as it is eternal in one form or another. Despite WLC and Richard Swinburne, a personal explanation cannot do, because this one has no explanatory power.A nexus must exist betwixt energy and Him for Him to operate,but never can one adduce one,because of His mysterious ways.
Science finds no externality to Existence, and thus per Reichenbach’s argument from Existence, as it is all, no transcendent reality can arise, and thus no begged question.
Despite WLC,should another Muliiverse have arisen,why that’s due to causalism,not to divie choice.
Per Lamberth’s [Google:] teleonomic argument, as science finds no intent whatsoever behind all Nature, to postulate Hims as having that intent, contradicts instead of complementing science and theistic evolution is no more than an oxymoronic obfuscation. To still aver that He can have that intent becomes the new Omphalos argument that He decieves us into thinking that teleonomy rules when His intent does to make for John HIck’s epistemic distance so as not to overwhem our free wills.
No, one cannot defeat Flew’s [ Google:] the presumption of naturalism.
Of course we fallibliists yell out : we could be wrong!
We skeptics require all the evidence available.
And ti’s a Jamesian straw man to dismiss Clifford’s heuristic rule here, because the amount differs from none to extraordinary and the supernatural and the paranormal are such cases. Paul Kurtz calls them “The Ttranscendental Temptatation,” a must read book.
I do recommend this site at some of mine!
LikeLike
February 2, 2012 at 10:06 am
Grigg,
You are wrong. First, you are wrong to think it is possible that the quantum vacuum could have existed eternally in the past. As Vilenkin pointed out, quantum instabilities would not allow the vacuum to remain in a steady state for an infinite amount of time before it started spawning off bubble universes. It would be forced to collapse after a finite amount of time, and thus cannot be eternal. See my post https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/alexander-vilenkin-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning.
Second, a cyclical universe is not one without a Big Bang, but one with a potentially infinite number of Big Bangs followed by a potentially infinite number of Big Crunches.
Thirdly, you are wrong to say Vilenin et al only disposed of cyclical models. Let me quote him for you:
“A remarkable thing about this theorem is its sweeping generality. We made no assumptions about the material content of the universe. We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value, no matter how small. This assumption should certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is impossible.”
And again, “A physically reasonable spacetime that is eternally inflating to the future must possess an initial singularity…. The fact that inflationary spacetimes are past incomplete forces one to address the question of what, if anything, came before.”
And again, a “universe…in a state of eternal inflation without a beginning…is in fact not possible in future-eternal inflationary spacetimes as long as they obey some reasonable physical conditions.”
Vilenkin said in another place, “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”
In fact, Vilenkin claims precisely the opposite of what you said. He said the only way to avoid his theorem that necessitates a beginning to physical reality is to postulate a contracting universe prior to the expanding universe (which is what a cyclical model entails), though he maintains that such is not possible: “You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time. This sounds as if there is nothing wrong with having a contraction prior to expansion. But the problem is that a contracting universe is highly unstable. Small perturbations would cause it to develop all sorts of messy singularities, so it would never make it to the expanding phase.”
Tbc….
LikeLike
February 2, 2012 at 10:29 am
Continued….
You are also mistaken to assume that just because something is eternal, it is “groundless to query whence they come!” This is a logical fallacy called denying the antecedent. The form of the fallacy is as follows:
(1) If A, then B [If Bono is an American citizen, then he is a human being]
(2) Not A [Bono is not an American citizen]
(3) Therefore not B [Therefore Bono is not a human being]
Applied to your claim:
(1) If A, then B [If the universe began to exist, then it has a cause]
(2) Not A [The universe did not begin to exist]
(3) Therefore not B [Therefore the universe did not have a cause]
It could be the case that all things, both eternal and temporal, require a cause since causation comes in two forms: temporal and logical. Like the eternal indentation in Kant’s cushion (caused by the eternal ball resting on the eternal cushion from eternity passed), an eternal universe may require a logically prior cause. One needs a separate argument to conclude that some eternal X needs no cause.
And when it comes to the universe, I don’t think this is possible because the universe is a contingent being; i.e. there is nothing about the universe that is necessary. Even if the universe has in fact existed eternally, it did not need to exist, and/or it did not need to exist in the fashion that it does. It is contingent. The defining feature of contingent beings is that they require an external cause for their being. They do not have being in themselves. They derive their being from something else. Even if the universe was eternal, since it is a contingent being it would have to derive its being from some external, logically prior cause. This would invite the question of what caused the logically prior cause of physical reality. To avoid an infinite regress of logical causation one must eventually terminate the regress with a necessary being; i.e. a being who cannot not exist; whose nature is such that it must exist and must exist as X rather than –X.
God has no explanatory power? This is a bald and unfounded assertion. Of course God has explanatory power. That is one of the reasons so many people have believed in God. One might argue that God’s explanatory power is inferior to the explanatory power of other hypotheses intended to explain the same phenomenon, but to say God has no explanatory power is pure rhetoric without a rational foundation.
Jason
LikeLike
February 2, 2012 at 5:49 pm
Jason, thanks. I’ll have to let our comments stand for now. I’m going to read Vilenkn again and Barrow and others also.
Anyway, this remains a scientific problem with a scientific answer.
http:”lordgriggs1947.wordpress.com
LikeLike
February 2, 2012 at 5:51 pm
Oh, I’ll get around to the rest of your comments tomorrow.
LikeLike
January 1, 2013 at 3:57 am
[…] minds are impossible; i.e. that persons must be physical beings. I spoke to this in a 2008 post. Prayson Daniel recently blogged on the subject as well. I would encourage you to read his […]
LikeLike