God most likely exists

IntroductionIn the course of this debate, I shall defend the existence of a cosmic mind which grounds reality. The premises might seem readily acceptable, however the conclusion will be counter-intuitive to many. Please do not let this affect your consideration of the argument.I shall summarize the argument, and then get into defending the premises. Please note that when I speak of “mental” I mean something which is contrasted to mindless physical matter in the philosophical sense. So we could read P1 as the logical obverse, "No mind is non-mental" [1] which basically states that mind isn’t reducible to something like mind-less physical matter.P1 Mind is mentalP2 Nothing mental can interact with what is non-mentalC1 Nothing mind interacts with is non-mentalP3 Mind interacts with realityC2 Reality is mental I. P1. Mind is not matter.Off the top of my head, I can think of about ten different arguments to defend this premise. But for now I shall stick to one which I think is very convincing and will save the most room.SolipsismP1: IF mind is matter, THEN solipsism is impossible (exists in no possible worlds).P2: Solipsism is possible (does exist in some possible world).C: Mind is not matter.Metaphysical solipsism is the position that all that exists is your mind [2]. You might think there’s a real world out there, but in reality, that’s all an illusion.We also might substitute Descartes’ evil genius simulating the world around us [3].So is there a possible world where all that exists is minds?There are good reasons to believe this.(i) This seems perfectly possible. There are no explicit contradictions in it. It certainly isn’t prima facie impossible. So we should accept it as a logically coherent possibility.(ii) It’s quite conceivable.If mind were made up of matter, it would be utterly impossible for it exist apart from matter. It's like saying “It’s possible for this pen made out of plastic to exist when plastic does not exist.” That’s absurd. Secondly, metaphysical impossibilities aren't even conceivable. Can you conceive of a square triangle? Or the part being greater than the whole? No. Because they're metaphysical impossibilities, which are incoherent in themselves. Consequently, if something is conceivable, it must be at least metaphysically possible. There's a "thing" there for us to understand and conceive, unlike impossibilities.Now please do not confuse metaphysical possibility with physical possibility. See the diagram below... So when I say that it is metaphysically possible, all I'm saying is that it's logically coherent, and could be the case in a possible world.So metaphysical solipsism seems at least metaphysically possible. Now P1 is much easier. It's just an application of Leibniz's law [4]. If the mind were some sort of physical or mindless substance, then this mindless something would have the same properties as the mind. But importantly, this includes modanic properties; properties of possibility.To illustrate…Thing 1 Thing 2XYZ qualities XYZ qualitiesExists in possible world A Exist in possible world AExists in possible world B Does not exist in possible world BSince these two things have different modanic properties, they can’t be the same thing.The reason I think this argument is so strong is because it goes much deeper. Recall, that in order for the argument to succeed, I must just show that it is logically coherent for there to be a world in which only your mind exists, and matter does not exist. But wait! It might be the case that this world is a solipsistic one. So solipsism is not just a far off abstract possibility; it's a very real and immediate one.Make sure you understand this argument before proceeding.II. P2. Seperate substances cannot interact.I shall now debunk substance dualism and property dualism.1. Substance dualism.Substance dualists hold that there are two completely different types of "stuff." [5] There's "mind stuff" and there's "physical stuff." But if mind isn't physical, how can it interact with matter as it obviously does? Does the mind put an electric charge into the brain? Does the brain affect the mind in the same way? In other words, interaction would have to come about through a common property which both mind and matter share. Some bridge which gaps between mind and matter.See the diagram below: But there's a problem here. Because separate substances, by definition, do not share any properties. If they did, they wouldn't be separate substances to begin with.So the notion of there being two completely different substances which somehow cause each other is incoherent. But the mind most certainly does interact with reality! Thus, there can't be two separate substances.2. Property dualism."Alright," you might say, "but affecting the brain affects the mind. So maybe the mind isn't a separate substance, but is a property of the brain."This is property dualism. It holds that there is one type of substance, "matter", but that matter has physical properties as well as mental properties. And mental properties is where the mind is. See the diagram below: Now this leads to major problems of epiphenomenalism and no free will, which I'll probably get into in later rounds.But besides having highly counter-intuitive problems, property dualism gets even worse.Let's take an example of a property. Let's say, "a ten pound rabbit." Now the property "10 lbs" is said of "rabbit." By itself, "10 lbs" isn't even a thing. Have you ever gone outside and seen a "10 lb"..... a 10 lb what exactly? Oh yknow, just a 10 lb.As you can see, properties are abstractions of a substance. By themselves, they're not really a thing. In fact, it's entirely impossible for them to exist by themselves, since they're abstractions! They exist only inasmuch as the substance they are a property of exists. Properties aren't things. They're properties of things.But remember the solipsism argument. We saw that it's perfectly possible (metaphysically) for the mind to exist by itself. There's nothing incoherent about that. If the mind were just a property like "10 lb" we wouldn't be able to coherently describe it as a thing in itself. However, we surely can. Thus, the mind cannot just be a property like "red" or "10 lb." There is also the huge problem of free will, which I touched on above. So property dualism is epistemic suicide, highly counter-intuitive, and even just plain impossible. Sounds like a defeater to me.III. P3. Mind interacts with reality.Now as we've seen, mind is fundamental. I've shown that it's fundamental ontologically, as well as epistemically.But mind obviously does interact with the reality we experience If I stub my toe, it hurts. I feel the pain. My mind has been affected. I can also make choices. This seems self-evident. Mind affects reality, and reality affects mind.IV. Explanatory powerNow I've given good arguments to believe in idealism (all is mind), but it also has a huge ability to explain things.Any science is compatible with idealism. To bring up science is a futile task, since it's perfectly compatible with idealism. Furthermore, idealism can explain how mind and reality interact both ways. It can also explain the existence of the mind, something materialism has an immense difficulty doing, as shown in Chalmer's Hard Problem [6].V. Occam's Razor.Technically, Occam's razor is only supposed to be applied when competing hypotheses have equal explanatory power, but I'll put this out there anyways. Idealism is highly favored by Occam's razor. It doesn't make the assumption of two separate substances, like dualism, but it also doesn't make the assumption that mind is identical to some neurons firing in my brain.As Sam Harris says"There is nothing about introspection that leads you to sense that your subjectivity is at all dependent or even related to voltage changes and chemical reactions going on inside your head. You can drop acid, you can meditate for a year...at no point...do you get a glimpse that there is a hundred trillion neurons in your head." [7]GodTheism follows from this form of idealism. Remember that the conclusion follows necessarily; reality is mental. Now since reality is mental, and is independent of our minds, there must be another mind to ground it. True, it might be the case that reality is projected by our subconsciousness, and solipsism is true, but even then, God would exist... in other words, God, defined in this debate as the mind that grounds reality would still be there. I would be God. Of course, I don't think this is the case, since the world seems to go on regardless of me, but fleeing to the mysterious embrace of solipsism won't help my opponent any.ConclusionRemember when I said up there that the premises might be easy to defend, but the conclusion would seem counter-intuitive? Well now I think you see what I mean. Remember, the conclusion follows with necessity. If the premises are true, we cannot escape it; the conclusion must also be true. It might be a tough pill to swallow, but if it's true, all we can do is gulp.Thus, I have shown that it is most likely the case that reality is mental, and as such, there is a God, a mind which grounds reality.Thank you.==Sources==[1]http://academic.csuohio.edu...[2]http://www.iep.utm.edu...[3]http://people.wku.edu...[4]http://www.oberlin.edu...[5]http://www.philosophy-index.com...[6][7]http://youtu.be...