Kevin Wampler wrote:
> both for God and for free will is that our decisions are not caused by 
> the material state of the universe precisely because we are conscious 
> agents (ie have "souls" from a religious perspective).

Well, the existence of the "soul" is another question. One can reasonably 
question what is even meant by "the soul".

> The view here would be that the *only* uncaused effects are those 
> arising from a conscious agent.  Thus if something before the universe 
> must have caused it, that something must have been an act by a conscious 
> agent.  Since "conscious agent that created the universe" sounds almost 
> exactly like a standard definition of God, by this like of reasoning, it 
> seems to lead to an argument *for* the necessity in a God creating the 
> universe rather than against it.

Thank you. That's exactly the sort of counter-argument I was looking for.

That's not how the "first cause" argument is usually argued - I've never 
seen an argument that uncaused events can be caused by conciousness. 
Generally, the uncaused events are caused by a god, and the god doesn't need 
a cause because he's always been present.

However, it certainly shoots down my line of reasoning, if one assumes 
"consciousness" can cause otherwise un-caused events.

Then, of course, you can get into an argument over what "consciousness" is, 
but that's another argument and (in my opinion) rather easier to discuss.

> so your counterargument will still need to address the relationship 
> between mind and body more directly to be convincing.

Yes it would.  (Actually, I suspect anyone who would actually argue with me 
this way is far beyond convincing, but that's another question.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message