logic Archives - Rational Pantheism

Shadow of the Dead God Critiques Our God Proof

Someone calling themselves Shadow of the Dead God has issued a critique of our proof for the existence of God. As per usual his “critique” is nothing but pompous pseudo-scientific drivel riddled with logical fallacies.

His first false claim is that we’re redefined God to be the universe. This is the second atheist criticism we deal with right in the proof in the section “Atheist Criticisms”. That he missed it or could not understand it does not bode well for his comprehension abilities.

We are not redefining anything. We are simply saying that the Universe is a being, the supreme being, God. Pantheism was the first conception of a supreme being. If anyone has redefined the concept of God it is every non pantheist.

The second false claim is that we’re “conflating” the terms God and Universe. We are not. We are equating them, saying that they are one and the same thing, not confusing two different things. There is no conflation whatsoever. He does not seem to understand what the concept of conflation refers to.

The third false claim made is that we err by assuming that there is not some physical stuff other than energy. He claims that to assert that one “would need to have a complete theory of quantum gravity, that unifies general and special relativity with quantum mechanics to assert that”. He provides no justification for this odd view presumably because there is none.

Next he falsely claims that “Laurence Krauss demonstrated that the total net energy of the universe equals zero.” Kraus did no such thing. His cancellation hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. A hypothesis with inconclusive experimental proof to support it. At any rate, these cancellation theories are not claiming that there is no energy, only that the effects of positive energy cancel out the effects of negative energy.

Next is a false claim that our proof commits an equivocation fallacy. He claims that we are equivocating “electrical and neurological synapsis that create (sic) brain activity” with “gravitational pull of black-holes”. We don’t do that at all. We’re simply saying that both such interactions ultimately involve field interactions. So he has misrepresented our argument and attacked that misrepresentation, i.e. he committed a straw man fallacy.

Next he claims that our “assertion that the universe is just one massive system of interacting energy, is patently wrong, and lacking of understanding.” He does not justify this claim and instead rambles on about how the universe does not work and nothing interacts with the universe which is something we’ve not said. He appears to be making the bizarre conflation that we’re claiming that the fact that the Universe is a system of interacting energy somehow means that we’re interacting with the Universe as a whole. It doesn’t though. This is just some nonsense he made up because he seems to have a pathological need to misinterpret what we write.

Next he make the false claim that heat death of the Universe is inevitable. It is not. Few physicists actually believe that and for those that do, their justification is merely theoretical, not an established fact. He then makes the false claim that the Universe had a beginning. The known universe possibly did but the Universe itself for all we know has always existed. A big problem here is his repeated faulty equivocation of theories with fact. This betrays a severe lack of understanding in basic science.

Here’s where it gets pretty absurd. He agreed with the following statement: “It’s important to understand that interacting energy wouldn’t cause a mental state to magically arise out of nowhere”. But he had a big problem with the following conclusion: “Energy itself must have the simplest possible default mental state”. If everything is interacting energy and the interactions do not cause mental state to arise from nowhere, the only alternative is that energy has a simple mental state that gets shaped by interaction. He proclaims that this is absurd without any justification.

With the following statement: “It would be wrong to assume that only energy packet interaction results in mental states. Any sort of energy interaction should also produce mental states” he conflates mental states with minds and then rejects the statement with an appeal to incredulity fallacy. Because he can’t imagine that energy interactions result in changed mental states, the notion is simply proclaimed to be nonsense.

In responding to the argument summary he proclaims that while energy interactions in the brain produce mental states, no other interactions do. That shows that he is engaging in special pleading. Somehow energy interactions in the brain are special in that they alone magically bestow mentality.

He dismisses our observation that treating mentality as a special case from physicality involves special pleading by simply proclaiming that mentality supernaturally arises from the physical. No explanation is given, we are just meant to take this dogmatic statement on blind faith.

He dismisses our objection to the supernatural concept of strong emergence of mentality by simply proclaiming that mental states require a brain. Again, no justification is given, we must simply believe this on blind faith.

He dismisses our conclusion that energy has simple mentality by simply proclaiming that it is an “unfounded, unsupported and absurd assertion” and “absurd, incoherent and illogical nonsense” without finding any holes in the argument’s logic.

His rebuttal is nothing but an incoherent mishmash of pseudoscience and logical fallacies. His many unjustified proclamations amount to bare assertion logical fallacies. This is the very kind of tripe you’d encounter with young Earth creationists who are trying in vain to show that your science based arguments are wrong.

The Special Pleading of Mentality’s Strong Emergence

Humans are ultimately composed of elementary particles or fields. Every complex physical trait we have can be traced to primitive versions of this trait in these fields. Every physical thing we do is a form of movement. We can only perform these movements because the fields we are composed of have the ability to move.

These movements require energy. Our bodies have mechanisms to absorb and use energy to perform these movements. The same holds true with our elementary particles.

The ability to move our limbs doesn’t magically appear out of thin air at some point of development. It is instead directly traceable to each of our subsystems: cells, atoms, subatomic particles and elementary particles. There is not one physical attribute that is an exception to this rule. As such, complex physical phenomena are said to weakly emerge from the interactions of subsystems that possess simpler forms of these physical phenomena.

A rational person therefore would assume that this weak emergence rule would apply to our mental abilities too. That is, every complex mental phenomena we are capable of would have a simpler counterpart in each subsystem. This would mean though that the cells, atoms, subatomic particles and elementary particles that compose us would have simple forms of mentality too. That is, panpsychism is a reality.

The alternative to our subsystems possessing mentality involves the idea that mentality strongly emerges from physical sources that lack any mental capabilities. This odd scenario assumes that mentality is somehow inexplicably special. It is a unique case that applies only to mental capabilities but not physical properties. Yet no justification whatsoever has ever been presented for this special case. This is the very definition of special pleading.

Special pleading is a fallacy in which something is cited as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception. Those who oppose panpsychism necessarily must embrace the strong emergence of mentality. They dogmatically adhere to this irrational outlook with only the rudimentary logical fallacy of special pleading to justify it.

It is high time that all sane scholars reject the raving irrationality of mentality’s strong emergence and instead embrace the only rational alternative, panpsychism.

Panpsychism’s Combination Non-Problem

For many philosophers the so called combination problem is panpsychism’s Achilles’ heel. The combination problem refers to not understanding how the multitude of cells (or particles) possessing simple mentality, work together to form the complex mentality that we experience.

There really is no problem at all though. We don’t seem to have a problem understanding how our complex physical properties weakly emerge from simpler forms of those properties in the cells or particles that compose us. Why on Earth then would there somehow be a problem for mental properties?

This “problem” is really just a case of special pleading. Mental properties somehow inexplicably operate differently than physical properties because some philosophers simply find the idea of panpsychism distasteful.

Highly integrated cells working together cause new physical capabilities to emerge just as our advanced mental capabilities emerge from cells with far simpler mental capabilities. The mind’s subjectness is akin to the body’s systemness. Either both have a combination problem or neither does.

Has any actual justification ever been presented that the combination problem even exists? It does not appear so. This “problem” then is merely a dogmatic fantasy or delusion based on nothing but blind faith.

The real combination problem seems to apply to anti-panpsychists. How does phenomenal experience somehow magically arise from nowhere when the right combination of particles form? This is the real question that is consistently ignored by those with a deep-seated, blindingly irrational aversion to the eminently rational position of panpsychism.

Pantheism The Mother Spirituality

Most theists (believers in God) will not want to hear this but all theisms (beliefs in God) are forms of pantheism. Panpsychism too necessarily leads to pantheism. Consider this argument:

The Universe is all there is.
There is no way that a supreme being could be less than all there is or more than all there is.
God can only be the Universe.

The first statement is a simple fact. The second statement though requires some clarification. Logically, barring supernatural beliefs, God cannot be more than All there is. God is a thing and therefore cannot be outside the set of all things. But can God be less than all there is? Now consider this other argument:

All mind is shaped by matter interaction.
All matter is mind.
All matter interacts with all other matter through gravity for one.
The totality of mind is Mind or God the Universe.

For the first two statements refer to our article on Proving the Existence of God. For the third statement refer to Newton’s law of universal gravitation. If all matter interacts with itself, all matter will form the ultimate mind, God. So God cannot be less that all there is. God clearly is all there is.

All claimed supernatural properties of God are unjustified and even unjustifiable and so can be flatly ignored. What is left clearly and logically shows that all forms of theism including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Deism and any others as well as panpsychism, are forms of pantheism. Truly it seems that pantheism is the mother of all theistic spiritualities.

Proving Panpsychism

Panpsychism is the view that all things have a mental component. That is, all things, from quantum fields to atoms to the Universe itself have some kind of mental life.

The proof for panpsychism is exceptionally simple. The main “argument” against panpsychism is not an argument but a purely faith-based belief propped up by ridiculous pseudoscience and absurd pseudo-logic.

Basically, the claim against panpsychism is that mentality is emergent. That is, mentality magically arises from non-mental stuff at some indeterminate point in evolution. Proponents of emergence strongly dispute that this process is anything magical. But magic involves supernatural occurrences. A new property, mentality, simply occurring at some indeterminate point for no known reason out of nowhere and from nothing would most certainly be a supernatural occurrence.

Now we actually understand emergence very well in physical systems. Every emergent physical property that we understand, is an illusion that is explainable by the physical properties of the system’s constituent parts. Take the hardness property of iron. Iron is made of iron atoms which are not hard but have bonding properties which result in them combining together. We interpret this bonding as hardness. The property of hardness is an illusion that only exists in our reality but not at the reality of the atomic level. That is, if you were able to shrink down to the level of the atom you would not experience hardness. You would instead see atoms packed together.

There is no reason to believe that mentality works in a different way. In fact, it would be an extraordinary claim that mentality would operate in an entirely different way than physical processes. Particularly when there is not a single shred of evidence or even a logical argument to support such an oddly magical explanation.

So in effect, refuting the magical emergent argument for mentality is actually panpsychism’s proof. As far as we know, all emergent physical processes are explainable by simpler physical processes of a system’s component parts. Therefore mentality will be explainable by the simpler mental properties of the system’s component parts as well. Since magical creation from nothing is impossible or at the least unjustifiable, the smallest system should have the simplest level of mentality. When these simple systems organize into complex systems we get not only complex physical properties but we can get complex mental properties too.

Argument Summary

P. Either mentality arises from non-mental stuff or all stuff has simple mentality that can be arranged into complex forms.
P. There is no justification whatsoever that mentality can magically arise out of nothing. Therefore this claim can be rejected.
P. Further, it is impossible for complex things to arise from nowhere. Such an explanation can therefore only be supernatural.
P. All complex physical properties result from the arrangement of simpler versions of these properties in a system’s subsystems.
P. It would involve special pleading to claim that mentality would operate in a dramatically different way than physicality.
C. Therefore panpsychism must necessarily be true.

When there is only one rational explanation for something, that explanation, while not technically proven true, is the one only the irrational will reject. When an explanation appeals to supernatural magical forces, that explanation will only be entertained by the non-rational.

Conclusion

So human mentality is in fact emergent. But it doesn’t magically arise out of thin air from non-mental stuff. Complex mentality instead emerges from a multitude of simple mental systems operating together in a complex system. That is, human-level mentality emerges exactly the same way as the physical human being emerges as cells grow and multiply. Panpsychism is therefore an undeniable fact that philosophy and science needs to come to terms with.

Pantheism and the Fallacy of Division

Explains how our proof for the existence of God does not commit the fallacy of division.

To date the best argument against our proof for the existence of God has been an accusation of committing the fallacy of division. The fallacy of division involves claiming that because a thing has a property, the components of that thing also have that property. So because we say “We have
consciousness and because consciousness can’t magically arise out of thin air, the atoms that compose us must have consciousness.” this means we are committing this fallacy. Or does it?

Consider this argument: “We have mass. Therefore the atoms composing us have mass.” This is a correct statement. If I say though, “I have a mass of 150 pounds. Therefore the atoms composing me each have a mass of 150 pounds.” this is obviously incorrect. The difference is that the second argument is guilty of equivocating a fundamental property (mass) with a specific property (a specific amount of mass).

So what we’re saying is that consciousness is a fundamental property and that human level consciousness and atom level consciousness are specific properties. We are not equivocating human level consciousness with atom level consciousness . Therefore our argument is not susceptible to the fallacy of division.

Proving the Existence of God

In rational pantheism, God is synonymous with the Universe. So, the Universe is a conscious supreme being. Can such a notion be proven? Yes it can. To accept the reality of God’s existence you simply need to understand a simple logical argument.

The Argument

From biology we understand that thinking humans are collections of individual living entities called cells and that these cells are composed of molecules. From chemistry we know that molecules are composed of atoms. From physics we understand that atoms are composed of subatomic particles which ultimately are composed of elementary particles. Elementary particles are excitations of quantum fields. The Universe itself is composed only of such fields.

Everything that a human does can be traced down to interactions of these fields. Nothing we do can be caused by anything else unless you believe in the existence of magical paranormal forces. So, the only logical conclusion is that human mental states result from the interactions of fields. The Universe itself is one massive complex system of interacting fields and therefore must also have some kind of mental life, however primitive. Thus the God of pantheism is an established fact.

It’s important to understand that interacting fields wouldn’t cause a mental state to magically arise out of nowhere. Fields themselves must have the simplest possible default mental state. Field interactions would then shape this state. Interactions in a complex system would give rise to complex mental states.

All complex physical states in a complex system result from the shaping of simpler physical states in the simpler subsystems. It would involve special pleading to claim that mental states are somehow an exception to this process.

So to summarize, we have one very important assumption: there is no magic. Matter cannot be magically created from nothing nor can mental states. Simple forms of matter can be organized into complex structures. Similarly, simple mental states can be organized into complex mental phenomena. Since the simplest form of matter we know of are elementary particles, these particles must contain the simplest kind of mental state. So mentality is a property of particles just as mass is.

Argument Summary

Humans are composed of elementary particles or excitations of quantum fields.
Human mental states result from these field interactions.
Every complex physical property results from the shaping of simpler forms of that property in a system’s interacting subsystems.
It would involve special pleading to claim that mentality works dramatically differently from physicality.
It is therefore irrational to assume that a property like mentality would magically arise from nowhere when fields interact.
Therefore fields have simple mentality. i.e. Panpsychism is true.
Field interactions shape this mental state making it more complex.
The more and sophisticated the interactions, the more complex the states.
In a complex system advanced forms of consciousness emerge.
The Universe is composed only of interacting fields.
The Universe is the most complex system there is.
Therefore the Universe must have some kind of mental life.
Ergo God.

Rejecting the above argument banishes you to an irrational netherworld where the absurd assumption is made that mental states magically arise out of nowhere at a certain point in human development. We never see this magical creation out of nothing anywhere else in any of our scientific investigations so why would a rational person assume it happens with mental states? We do see complex physical systems composed of smaller simpler physical systems, so a rational person would assume that mental systems probably work in a similar way. One better, a rational person would see mental and physical as the same thing; monism as opposed to dualism.

Rejecting the God of pantheism involves: ignoring science, rejecting logic and accepting a plethora of impossible supernatural assumptions. So even Ockham’s Razor is telling us that atheism is an absurd belief system.

Atheist Criticisms

The above argument has received several weak criticisms from members of the atheist community.

“You are pronouncing that God exists but provide no proof whatsoever!”
The argument providing the logically derived proof of God is found under the section entitled “The Argument”.
“Simply calling the universe God is no different that calling a rock God!”
We’re not simply equating God with an inanimate object. We are actually saying that the Universe, the sum total of all things, is a being with some form of mental life.
“Your argument is childish, is full of fallacies and proves nothing at all!”
This is the most ridiculous “criticism” of all. It is simply a pronouncement of faith. Atheists claim to be reason based but when presented with an argument proving their position wrong, most just fall silent and return to their faith. Some of them however, possess only the rudimentary intellect to simply proclaim their faith in atheism by insulting the threatening argument and its proponents. If an argument has problems in it, reasonable people would point out specifically what those problems are and support their case with reason, not faith based claims.

The best atheist response to our argument is the claim that it commits the fallacy of division. That argument is easily dealt with here.