How could God just allow 0 + 0 = 1 and make something come from nothing?

TL;DR I believe in hard determinism BUT I don't know if the world would be better or worse if everyone accepted hard determinism. What do you think?

I used to believe we should always strive for and push for the truth... However, I am not sure in this case it is getting me to question that belief.

I believe in hard determinism I think it is the truth, but there are many possible pros and pons to everyone believing in it

Pro's:

• More love less hate: More compassion, understanding, and empathy
• humility/less entitlement
• More equality: Everyone seen and treated as equal
• Effective solutions to important problems: Put way more focus on improving the root of bad things in our society (improving the causes) which should be effective
• Rehabilitation>punishment 
• Less anxiety: less blame and less responsibility
• Empowerment and altruism: people with more power will put more effort into helping and giving back and guiding people into breaking free from ignorant beliefs that are limiting and keeping them poor and powerless
• Positive change for those less fortunate: people who are low may use hard determinism to realize their past is creating their circumstances and they need to let go and move on and their life will improve

Con's:

• No responsibility 
• More passivity: less motivation, personal growth, and goal pursuing
• Depression: Maybe more depression due to people thinking they are absolutely powerless
• lead people to fatalism: where people think fate has all the power
• Anxiety: Maybe more anxiety due to overthinking that they aren't in control of their lives
• crime: Maybe more crime because people just give up and think none of it matters
• Less initiative 
• Ethical concerns: Maybe more manipulation and ethically questionable ways of tampering with the causes to make the best outcome
• Shift towards socialism: More socialistic structures (Could be a pro, maybe socialistic structures don't work because we believe in free will)

I think it's all about fully understanding hard determinism. We are already living in that reality so if it is accepted we need to understand that it doesn't restrict our options. We just need to understand it deeper but I'm not sure if anyone can do it let alone a whole society.

So... thoughts? Would the world be a better or worse place if everyone accepted hard determinism?

Hey everyone 👋🏻. A new argument for theism is gaining attraction and it is known as the ‘psychophysical harmony argument’ (read here: https://philarchive.org/archive/CUTPHA#:~:text=Roughly%2C%20psychophysical%20harmony%20consists%20in,another%20in%20strikingly%20fortunate%20ways.)

I have recently been wondering though whether it is possible to avoid the new psychophysical harmony argument if a person was to adopt an idealist position (epistemological or metaphysical)? I ask because if one adopts idealism, then this entails that phenomenal truths are fundamental and physical truths either don’t exist or are entirely grounded in phenomenal truths. Given this is the case, doesn’t this successfully avoid the argument altogether in a similar manner (but inverted) to the way that Type-A physicalists (including analytical functionalism, eliminative materialism/illusionism, and certain forms of liberal naturalism) avoid the argument due to P-Zombies not only being impossible, but also inconceivable (phenomenal states/truths are identical to physical functions/behaviors and this can be known a priori). Thanks!

Evidentialism - the self refuting thesis that belief is only justified by evidence.

Evidentialist - One who affirms belief in evidentialism.

Faith - Belief in the absence of evidence.

I will try to briefly to show that there are parallels or similarities between the logic of the ontological argument and the infinity of objects.

**The Ontological Argument**:

- The ontological argument posits that God, as the most perfect being conceivable, must necessarily exist because existence is a part of perfection.

- In other words, if we can conceive of a supremely perfect being, then that being must exist in reality because existence is a greater attribute than mere conceptual existence.

- This argument has been debated for centuries and has various formulations, but the core idea remains consistent: God's existence is inherent in the concept of God.

**Here's a simplified explanation on how the argument works**:

- We start with the limitations of our human experience: we observe man with limited power, with limited knowledge, and limited quantities...etc

- From these finite limited realities, we abstract the ideas of limitless power, limitless knowledge, and limitless quantities.

- This process is an ascent from real particulars (our finite limited experiences) to ideal universals (infinite concepts).

The argument concludes therefore God exists, and the flaw is simply a jump in logic. From an idea which is universal, immaterial (infinite perfection), it doesn't follow that it exists in the real world.

Now, let's just assume this is a valid refutation (I think it is, but this is not something I want to argue about).

**II. Ascending to the Ideal Universal Infinite**:

- Consider natural numbers. We begin by counting real quantities of objects: 1, 2, 3, and so on.

- Through abstraction, we strip away the specific objects we counted and arrive at the concept of infinity. The natural numbers extend infinitely without bounds.

- This ascent from finite particulars to the ideal universal infinite mirrors (it seems to me) the ontological argument's ascent from our experience of less perfect and limited to the concept of absolute and infinite perfection.

- Having reached the ideal universal infinite, we now descend back to reality.

- Just as the ontological argument concludes that God exists in reality because perfection includes existence, proponents of infinity argue that infinite quantities (such as the set of infinite natural numbers) also exist.

- They assert that infinitude is not merely a conceptual abstraction but has a counterpart in the real world.

In summary, both arguments involve abstraction from finite particulars to ideal universals, followed by a descent back to reality. While the ontological argument pertains specifically to God, the concept of infinity shares a similar logical structure.

So it seems to me, the very persons who rejects, denie the ontological argument, calls it false, are using the same logical structure to argue for the infinity of objects, causes...etc.

I am curious what yo guys think about these parallels!

I am new to this philosophy and using my brain stuff so I was watching majesty of reason's Comprehensive Response of Hilbert's hotel( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt-rEeUIcR4&t=8530s ) in this he said that the future is an actual infinite because there will be an actually infinite number of events in the future but isn't that just saying that after an infinite steps have been taken in an potential infinite it becomes an actual infinite, which is true and a part of potential infinite. Like if we say how many revolutions "will" earth take around sun it will be infinite, so the earth rotating around sun is a actual infinite and not a potential infinite. Sorry if there is a dumb mistake in this understanding looking forward to learning from you :) .

Arguments for God's existence (specifically William Lane Craig's formulations of them) seem to be God of the gaps arguments.

Generally they all appeal to God as the best explanation.

Kalam, fine-tuning, contingency. Why prefer God as opposed to other explanations?

Is it because we can't think of any other explanation? What principle of reasoning should lead us to prefer God?

​

​

How do traditional sunnis view the attributes of Allah? Do they believe Allah's attributes are ontological separate from the subject Allah or they are identical to Allah eg. Divine simplicity

I've been exploring humanist perspectives lately and stumbled upon some fascinating euphemisms used in place of the term 'God', like, the ones imagined by the Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, such as "the Process by which the universe produces persons", "the Power that endorses what we ought to be, and that guarantees that it will be", or Rubenstein's "the force that makes for righteousness", and it got me thinking: what are some of your favorite humanist euphemisms for 'God'? Whether it's from literature, philosophy, or personal invention, I'm curious to hear the creative ways people describe transcendent concepts without resorting to traditional religious terminology.

Hello! I'm fairly new to Philosophy of Religion and a more popular argument ive seen is J.L. Schellenberg's argument of Divine Hideness. Though I have not read any of them but hope to he argues this in 2 books The hiddeness argument, and Divine hideness and Human reason. What are some others works by philosophers that argue against his argument?

Via the definition of god all 'abilities' are possible via the use of looped time via wormholes (if they exist) if you had an infinite amount of time to study learn and observe you would eventually gain the knowledge of a god.

My question is, If all it takes scientifically for heaven and hell or some kind of afterlife to exist is time travel at any point in the entire history of the universe does that make it more likely?

I chanced upon this interesting article authored by a Muslim revert, offering a critique and exploration of secular ideology, employing the dialectic of Euthyphro and Socrates as its framework. He does for some reason use some inflammatory words, probably to catch the readers eye. What do you guys think?
https://elyasturki.substack.com/p/the-nature-of-the-divine-in-forming

i'm a lifelong atheist and i want to widen my perspective. i have thought of the possibility of a higher power existing, but it doesn't make sense to me. especially something that revolves around there being a larger purpose that interacts with the world in a spiritual or physical way. so that rules out most of the major religions that i'm aware of. that said, i don't consider it a closed case, even though i feel comfortable saying that it most likely is. i would like to explore and become more aware and open minded of how other people view the world. the issue is that i don't really have a direction or place to start from. anything associated with stories and events occurring is off the table.

What I mean is, how can you have contradicting or opposing doctrinal beliefs in a religion and believe in the same God, for example? I can understand alternate approaches to practice or different emphasis on certain teachings, but some religions like Mormonism have an almost entirely different worldview than mainstream Christianity, and I don't see how any one sect or school of thought can claim to be the "correct one."

For that matter, how can any religion claim to be objectively correct with respect to its view of the world and our purpose in it? Is it because of its basis in blind faith over empirical inquiry? A bit of a different question there with respect to the title, but I thought I'd pose it as well.

I recently discussed infinity with a philosopher who specialises in both the philosophy of mathematics and the philosophy of religion. It was quite clear from subtle signs that he was interested in the former to understand the latter. For example, he took the mathematical work of Georg Cantor very seriously and eventually linked it to the way that humans relate to infinity (for example, the divine).

(I run a podcast so you can listen to the conversation here: https://open.spotify.com/episode/78BE1KyMAeGRAzoa5pRmal. I hope this does not count as self-promotion! Sorry if it does, you can delete the post if so!)

What do you think? Is there a fruitful link between the philosophy of mathematics and the philosophy of religion? Or are terms such as "infinity" used too differently in the two contexts?

1. The human will wants the good, it is its essence to want good, just as gravity attracts objects towards the center of gravity and cannot be otherwise, the will wants the good and cannot be otherwise.
2. The good that the will wants is a good that fulfills it, and that satisfies it perfectly.
3. In this world there are several goods, they are multiple, large and small but limited, for example: eating and sleeping are goods, but limited.
4. The goods of this world are multiple and separated, that is to say if I want the good of sleeping, I miss the good of eating…etc.
5. It seems that the will is never fulfilled and satisfied by the goods of this world since it always wants more.
6. Freedom is the power to choose between this limited good and the other limited good without constraint.
7. This freedom exists only because the will does not have before it a good that fulfills it and therefore it must choose between these limited goods, since it prefers to have all the goods and not just one which is limited and which lacks the good that the other goods have.
8. Therefore, the freedom to choose is a consequence of the lack of an absolute good that fulfills me.
9. But therefore if I have the absolute good that fulfills me, I do not have the freedom to choose since all the limited goods are included in the absolute good and it is he who fulfills me, and since the will wants the good by its essence, it can only want this good and no other.
10. Therefore, the freedom to choose is a lack of perfection of the will which is still seeking its objective.
11. If the end of the will is the absolute good, then true freedom is in the perfection of the will which is made only in the absolute good.
12. Therefore, the freedom to choose is not true freedom.

The idea of an environment is delusional in the sense that the collective of soceity and their tendencies, loyalty, morality and mercy is the perceived nature, the environment and the nature of it is reflection of a people's spiritual nature. Every aspect of a collectives spiritual nature is directly in front of them. When a collective engages in immoral behavior it will result in a mortal state. The spiritual nature of being human or immoral is executed in the tangible through the mortal death of what the collective was being. Immorality is an appropriate explanation for the fall of man, it sums up the state of being. However you also have the representations of the collective's personality, giving tangible poetic insights as one looks into his nature. For instance just as a wise deceiver fools others the fox will fool it's prey. Just as an individual will grow weak and be prayed upon so will the gazelle be devoured. Just as a shallow man uses material to appear bigger than he is a peacock will spread its feathers creating the same delusion of being something it's not. Every aspect of mans nature is an animal within itself being represented by creatures that represent them. Emotions are also represented with the temperature, ultimately the sum of the collective's spiritual health is represented by the climate. Seasons are the representation of progress and the loss of seasons is the degeneration of the will for righteousness. When cancer develops it is due to the cell no longer seeing itself as part of a body, instead it sees the body as it's environment, this disconnect from the collective causes the cell to compete and devour itself as it no longer holds a true perception. Man too has become a cancer as well by thinking of himself being different from the heavenly bodies which he makes up and is part of. instead just like the cancer humanity it is viewing itself in a deceptive manner resulting in a deceptive nature.

Interconnectedness of Nature, Spirituality, and Human Behavior: A Holistic Perspective

Introduction: In this philosophical approach, we delve into the intricate web of connections between nature, environment, climate, spirituality, morality, and human behavior. At the core of this philosophy lies the belief that everything is interconnected - from the collective spiritual nature of humanity to the tangible manifestations in the world around us. By exploring the parallels between spiritual and tangible reproductions, we gain profound insights into the complex relationship between human actions and their repercussions on the environment.

Nature as a Reflection of Spiritual Nature: Central to this philosophy is the notion that the environment is a reflection of the collective spiritual nature of humanity. The state of nature, including the climate and the environment, is viewed as a mirror of the spiritual health and moral behavior of individuals and society as a whole. Immorality is seen as a destabilizing force, leading to negative consequences that reverberate through the natural world.

Symbolic Representation in Nature: A unique aspect of this philosophy is the symbolic representation of human characteristics in animals and natural phenomena. Just as a wise deceiver fools others, so does the fox deceive its prey. This symbolic parallelism extends to emotions being represented by temperature, and the climate acting as a barometer of the collective spiritual health.

Humanity as Cancer: One striking analogy put forth in this philosophy is the comparison of humanity to cancer. Just as a cell loses its sense of belonging and begins to compete and devour itself, humanity, too, is likened to a cancer that views itself as separate from the greater cosmic whole. This disconnect from the interconnected nature of existence results in deceptive behaviors and a deterioration of the spiritual health of the collective.

Seasons and Progress: The philosophy views seasons as symbolic representations of progress and the will for righteousness. The loss of seasons is indicative of a degeneration in moral values and a weakening of the collective spiritual will. It suggests that chaos and disorder in the world are reflections of the spiritual state of humanity.

Within the fabric of existence, a philosophy emerges that intertwines nature, morality, and the looming specter of extinction. This unique perspective delves into the intricate relationships among human values, the natural world, and the profound impact of moral decline on both. Central to this philosophy is the belief that as certain values erode within the human collective, so too do the creatures of nature face the threat of extinction.

The Decline of Values and Extinction: At the heart of this philosophy lies a poignant observation: the gradual extinction of certain values within the human realm directly mirrors the potential extinction of species in the natural world. As humanity veers away from virtues such as compassion, empathy, and stewardship, the delicate balance of nature is disrupted, leading to the decline and disappearance of species that once thrived alongside us.

The Ripple Effect of Moral Erosion: This philosophy posits that the erosion of moral values within society creates a ripple effect that reverberates throughout the interconnected web of life. When greed supplants generosity, or when indifference replaces empathy, the repercussions are felt not only in human interactions but also in the delicate ecosystems that sustain biodiversity. Just as the loss of a keystone species can trigger a cascade of extinctions in nature, the extinction of fundamental values can have far-reaching implications for both humanity and the natural world.

Symbiosis of Values and Species: In this framework, each species in nature is seen as embodying a unique value or trait that is essential for the balance and harmony of the ecosystem. When a species faces extinction, it symbolizes the potential loss of a corresponding value within the human collective. For example, the extinction of a gentle and nurturing species could signify the waning of compassion and care among individuals. This symbiosis between values and species serves as a poignant reminder of the interconnectedness and interdependence of all living beings.

Preserving Values to Preserve Nature: As we grapple with the urgent challenges of environmental degradation and biodiversity loss, this philosophy offers a profound insight: the preservation of nature is intrinsically linked to the preservation of core human values. By nurturing virtues such as respect, harmony, and reverence for all forms of life, we can safeguard not only the rich tapestry of biodiversity but also the moral fabric that binds us to the natural world.

They make philo of religion content critique of theism type stuff are any of you familiar with them are they good ?

I think there are a few good reasons to doubt Oppy's initial state, and I'd like to hear some feedback if you would be so kind:

1. If the initial state is a "natural" thing, it's reasonable to expect that it be exhaustively described by scientific laws. Now, when we consider any "thing" as the proposed necessary thing which causes the rest of the universe, it's fair to ask, "Why is it we should find this thing to be the necessary thing"? What is it about this thing which gives it the privileged position of being necessarily existent? The problem is, nothing within any potential laws of physics or science will ever tell us why a thing should necessarily exist, or even exist at all. If I gave you a complete physical description of what it means to be a red ball, down to the placement of each particle, you would not know whether I am describing to you a ball that actually exists, or one that only potentially exists. Therefore, the laws of physics alone will not be able to address our initial question. What this means is that at best, Oppy would have to jettison physics itself as leading to ultimate truth, which raises the question as to whether this singularity is truly an object of "naturalism". It seems that this is, by definition, a supernatural object.
2. The principle of slight differences. Take any natural object O, and give me its complete physical description. Then, very plausibly, there exists another coherent description of a potential object O' whose description differs from that of O only by some slight degree: An electron shoved infinitesimally to the left, or .000000000001% hotter/larger/smaller/etc., or a slight variation in the effects it can produce, or the way it produces them. Every physical object we know of have a physical description which, if altered slightly, still makes coherent sense. And herein lies the problem for Oppy's singularity: Give me the description of the proposed singularity S. Find some slight alteration S' of this singularity. Now, as described in point 1 above, physical laws give us no knowledge as to whether a thing actually exists, or potentially exists. Hence, we should think that either both S and S' are actually possible, or that neither S nor S' are actually possible. But in neither case should we think that any are necessary (for if both are possible, neither are necessary).
3. Consciousness. I won't say too much here other than point out that many a philosopher holds the opinion that consciousness cannot arise as a by-product of "physical stuff". If you hold that opinion (as I do), then Oppy's initial state cannot be a purely physical thing, as it would not be able to eventually produce the consciousness that we experience.

Nineteen year old questioning their college degree here~ anyway I was hoping to get some insight on this as I have always found religion, spirituality, mythology and all the philosophy that comes with it fascinating, and if I were to make it possible, I would love to study it in college. My only problem is that while I do find Christianity fascinating, studying region without mainly focusing on it is seeming like less of a possibility outside of going abroad, which financially isn’t an option for me.

I’m already about to drop out of my current university because of financial issues, and will likely have to spend a few years in community and working to save up money, so I still got time and plenty of options. I just wanna know if this goal of getting such a broad degree in religious studies is even possible.

Hello I am currently revising for my A-Level philosophy exam and i am just wondering if a good critism of Anselm would be:
The ontological argument does fail as it relies upon the existence of a logical fallacy by assuming that a Christocentric definition of God transcends the Abrahamic understanding of God. Therefore, his claims that ‘God is the greatest possible being conceivable’ is an assumption made through a posteriori socialisation in a Christocentric society rather than an a priori, universal understanding of God. This is due to modern secularisation and polytheistic religions doubting Anslem's definition of God.

A few months ago, I posted about an objection to Graham Oppy's necessary initial state, which was essentially the following:

Given that the universe is uncaused and exist of necessity, ¿How did the universe came into being if there was nothing before, and therefore, no potentiality for something to arise?

There were at least 2 anwsers I found interesting:

1. If something is necessary, there is no 'why' and 'how', because is just necessary: there is nothing more that can be said.

2. There was never 'nothing', given existence exists since the initial state, the objection is absurd.

Regarding the first anwser, I first found it valid but now I got to say it's not. The theist can perfectly anwser that God is necessary and, at the same time, explain the 'how' god exists: God exists out of time, so he doesn't need a previous potentiality to came into existence, because he was always there. I guess that leaves Oppy's explanation in trouble, because maybe it's more simple, but it doesn't explain as much as the theist can.

Meanwhile, I'm more sympathetic to the second anwser, but I got some doubts. If existence is finite because we can point where it began, Isn't that a problem, because we can say, at the same time, that there was always existence? I guess my issue (if there is one really) is on what does it mean to say "Existence has existed always (because there was never no existence), but it has a beginning", because it seems that, being finite, we can't say both things at the same time. What does even "always" mean in that sentence?

Would really apreciate some help here :)

Just interested in a general discussion of the aforementioned and if anyone else thinks they feel similiar

Some theistic arguments make appeals to the existence of perfection or a perfect being. And their definitions of perfection always involve what we might call positive attributes such as maximally powerful, good, loving, etc. But why should we grant these definitions of perfection? I can more easily imagine that a perfect being encompasses all the attributes we observe in the universe - positive, negative, maximal, minimal, and everything in between.

For example, a being whose attributes span from maximally good to maximally evil is more perfect in my mind than a being that is only maximally good. I guess one could argue that the definition of perfection is necessarily limited to positive attributes. But such a limitation itself is arguably a lack of perfection. And I think this is only a limitation of our vocabulary and not a limitation of conceivability.

Isn't an all-encompassing definition of perfection just as reasonable, or even more reasonable than a one-sided definition?

§1 Introduction

Hi everyone 👋. I recently came across a new argument for theism that I found very interesting. It is referred to as the ‘psychophysical harmony’ argument in favour of theism. It was first argued in this recent paper by Brian Cutter and Dustin Crummett (https://philpapers.org/archive/CUTPHA.pdf). Numerous people who I conversed with have claimed that this argument is so “powerful” to the point where it makes theism “almost certainly true” and “beyond all doubt.” These are certainly some bold claims. Instances of psychophysical harmony have also been emphasised in recent work of non-theistic thinkers, such as Adam Pautz (2020), David Chalmers (2018), Philip Goff (2018), Hassel Mørch (2017, 2020), Harold Langsam (2011), Noa Latham (2000) and Bradford Saad (2019).

§2 Brief Summary of Psychophysical Harmony

To give a brief summary of what the argument is, it begins with the fact that there are certain appropriate matches between our conscious states and our physical states (such as our behaviour or our beliefs and judgments understood in functional terms). To put this another way: states of consciousness are related to each other, and to physical states, in strikingly harmonious ways — ways that seem extremely lucky, or involve many striking apparent coincidences. Put simply, psychophysical harmony consists in the fact that phenomenal states (that is, a mental state what we can recognise in ourselves, non-inferentially), are correlated with physical states and with one another in strikingly fortunate ways.

For example, we are disposed to pursue valuable hedonic states and to avoid disvaluable ones. If something feels good, you do it again, if something feels bad, you probably will not do it again. The tendency to have dispositions towards hedonic states is a type of hedonic harmony. Another specific example discussed in the paper involves examples such as: if I say there is a cup-shaped object in my visual field and then it turns out there is a cup shaped-object in my visual field — there is a match between the semantic content of a statement and the actual contents of conscious experience. This is semantic harmony. Those are the two main types of harmony focused on by Brian Cutter and Daniel Crummett in their paper. Essentially, a damaging stimulus causes physical state X, a certain biochemical or computational state of your brain. X causes you to avoid or eliminate the stimulus in the future. Conveniently, the psychophysical laws map X onto the experience of pain, an intrinsically bad experience which essentially provides one with reason to avoid or eliminate it.

Interestingly, Cutter and Crummett also argue in this paper that virtually every model of the mind (in the philosophy of mind) is prone to be affected by this argument. The argument (according to them) would work whether or not you are a substance dualist, epiphenomenalist, panpsychist, non-reductive physicalist, and so on.

It does seem that this new argument is essentially fine-tuning, but for cognition and consciousness, rather than for the universe itself.

§3 Why Psychophysical Harmony Entails Theism

Given everything I have just previously discussed, this raises the question of why would theism be better than any other explanation or hypothesis. This is because (according to Cutter and Crummett) on traditional atheism, naturalism or non-theism in general, it is difficult to see what could explain psychophysical harmony. No fundamental theory would seem to predict this — but this is not the case on theism though. This is because psychophysical harmony (PH) is valuable, inasmuch as it allows there to be beings who not only have phenomenal states, but have phenomenal states which can play normatively appropriate roles, who possess meaningful agency, who can respond to rationally to sensory evidence, who can behave rationally on the basis of their desires, and who can have reasonably reliable intuitions about their phenomenal states. Given the value of psychophysical harmony (PH), it is not surprising or unlikely at all that God would create a world whose laws are fine-tuned for psychophysical harmony (PH).

So, let us properly formulate this.

Likelihood Comparison: P (PH | Theism) >> P (PH | Atheism)

Therefore, we can conclude that psychophysical harmony is evidence for God, and drastically raises the probability of theism vis-à-vis atheism (along with naturalism or non-theism, in general)

§4 Bad Objections and Unsuccessful Counter Objections to Psychophysical Harmony

Now, I have so far heard some responses to this argument that I believe are either bad or unsuccessful counter-arguments.

The first bad response is to claim that: “this is a God of the Gaps argument.” This is simply not the case. The argument from psychophysical harmony (PH) takes the following form: Observation (O) strongly favours Hypothesis 1 (H1) over Hypothesis 2 (H2) since H1 assigns to O a probability that is much bigger than the probability that H2 assigns to O.

A second bad response is to ask: “couldn’t an observer selection effect explain harmony?” The answer would be no, since observers could find themselves in disharmonious universes.

A third possible response (the one that seems the most automatic in my experience so far) involves the temptation to argue that evolution by natural selection clearly explains this phenomena and solves the problem. However, this response only kicks the problem back, as we can now ask: why were the laws set up in such a way that evolution brought this about? It is not impossible that this process could have made creatures without PH (psychophysical harmony). Ultimately, natural selection has no influence over laws of nature, and psychophysical laws are a subset of natural laws. Just as natural selection cannot affect laws of gravity, it cannot affect psychophysical laws.

A fourth and final interesting response I have heard is from some people who claim: “I am a physicalist, so this does not apply to me, and I can therefore avoid the problem altogether.” If you are an a priori physicalist, then, yes, you would avoid the argument. But if, like the majority of contemporary physicalists, you are an a posteriori physicalist, this problem still applies to you (Cutter and Crummett in their paper assume the falsehood of a priori physicalism as they see it as extremely unlikely). For those who are not aware, an a priori physicalist is someone who will deny that there is even an epistemic gap between physical truths and phenomenal truths. Things such as philosophical zombies (P-Zombies) and qualia inversion are not conceivable, and knowledge of physical truths entail knowledge of phenomenal truths. An a posteriori physicalist will sound more sympathetic to non-physicalist claims, but they deny that the epistemic gap between physical and phenomenal truths represents an ontic gap. They basically concede a type of “dualism” when it comes to concepts, but say mind and brain should be identified on the basis of empirical findings. So, there is at least an epistemic gap (on this view): there is no conceptual entailment from physical truths to phenomenal truths.

§5 Concluding Final Remarks

I hope I was able to elucidate this argument in a clear manner (please do further research into this new argument). With everything previously said, what are some potential potent or successful responses or counter arguments that can undermine this new argument for theism?

One of my first instinctual responses to this argument was to potentially point out that proponents of this argument may have drastically overblown the amount of psychophysical harmony there is in the world. In fact, they could potentially be a greater amount of disharmonies in the psychophysical states of humans (or at least a near equal amount). These could include things such as flawed human memory, susceptibility to addiction, and limitations in human perception. Even further, there are all types of mental disorders, neurological disorders, neurological trauma, chronic pain conditions, and so on. However, this counter objection in my mind is still fresh and raw (I am not sure if it is at all valuable or whether it can even begin to challenge PH), and I am also not sure how to exactly formulate it in Bayesian epistemic terms to contrast it with psychophysical harmonious cases to see what is more probable (theism or atheism/naturalism/non-theism) given all this data.

Anyway, let us start a charitable, deep and thoughtful conversation and dialogue down below. Thanks!

I am posting this message in a bunch of different Reddit posts asking if anyone can complete a survey that I made about destiny and free will. This is for an AP class that I am currently taking and I need as much people as possible to complete it. It won’t even take long it takes around 2-3 minutes. (Unless you want to get into detail on certain questions which I will HIGHLY appreciate) Also yes, I am well aware that my survey is highly lacking in many aspects but it’s too late to change anything now.

https://s.surveyplanet.com/3q2kfxfu P.S I would really appreciate it if anyone could share this with others ASAP!!

If life is pedestined are we responsible for our actions? could you recommend philosophers that speaks about this topic?