Darren New wrote:
> Well, the existence of the "soul" is another question. One can 
> reasonably question what is even meant by "the soul".

I completely agree.  Since the question was phrased in religious terms I 
was merely trying to phrase the answer in the same way as well. 
Personally, I'm iffy enough on what "free will" means and how to make it 
coherent to actually attempt to argue about something more difficult 
still like a soul.

> 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.

I haven't seen it argued this way either, but I'd be quite surprised if 
the argument isn't commonly considered in more modern philosophical 
discussions of the topic.  It seems like a pretty natural response, and 
fits well with the sort of dualistic conception of the mind taken by 
many religious people.

> 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.

A completely agree.  Though technically speaking the argument still 
works if you replace "conscious agent" with "free agent".  It's just 
that (in my view) our conception of free will is so closely tied with 
our concept on consciousness (however vague) that it's more intuitively 
compelling to state it that way.

Said differently, you only need to push the argument to one about 
consciousness to the degree that you believe free will necessitates 
consciousness, although it's probably reasonable for a proponent to take 
that view as a "free but not conscious" God is a rather odd concept.

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

But at least they could also be rational in being unconvinced!

Post a reply to this message