JP Moreland's Modal Argument for Substance Dualism

This is an argument presented by JP Moreland here (he credits Alexander Pruss):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371750736_The_Modal_Argument_and_a_Rejoinder_to_Contingent_Physicalism


From the paper, the argument is:

(1) The Indiscernibility of Identicals & (x=y)→•(x=y).

(2) POs are essentially, wholly, and intrinsically physical and SSs are essentially, wholly, and intrinsically immaterial. 

(3) Possibly, I exist, and no POs exist. 

(4) My physical body is a PO.

(5) Therefore, possibly, I exist without my physical body existing.

(6) Therefore, it is not the case that I am essentially, wholly, and intrinsically my body or any PO.

(7) I am essentially, wholly, and intrinsically either a PO or SS.

(8) Therefore, I am essentially, wholly, and intrinsically a SS.

PO stands for "physical object" while "SS stands for spiritual substance".


Elsewhere he gives a more simplistic summary:

I am possibly disembodied (I could survive without my brain or body).​

My brain or body are not possibly disembodied (they could not survive without being physical).​

Therefore, I am not my brain or body, I am a soul.


Going through the formal argument step by step...

(1) The first step is invoking the law of "Indiscernibility of Identicals", which is discussed fully here, but in essence says that if two things are identical, they have the same properties and so cannot be discerned. It is pretty obvious, but philosopher like to build on trivial truths like this.

(2) Physical objects are physical, spiritual substances are not. Again, trivial.

(3) This is saying it is possible the physical world does not exist; that there are no physical objects - including my body - and yet I know that I do (I think therefore I am).

(4) Obviously my physical body is a physical object.

(5) Given (3) and (4) it is at least possible I exist or could exist without a body.

(6) Given (5), it must be the case that I am not the same as my physical body.

(7) I (the essence that is me) must be either physical or not.

(8) Given (6) and (7), I (the essence that is me) must not be physical.


Where this argument fails, in my view, is between steps (5) and (6). If (5) is possibly true, then he is tacitly admitting it is possibly not true (otherwise he is assuming what he is concluding - a circular argument).

5a. It is possible I could not exist without my body,

6a. Therefore it is possible that what I am is essentially my body

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Southern Baptist Convention Position on Abortion

Evangelical Christians in the US are very strongly anti-abortion. However, it was not always so. As recently as 1970 the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) - the largest Protestant denomination in the US - advocated for legalising abortion. A Complete Reversal The landmark law case in the US was Roe v. Wade, in 1973, and abortion has been legal since that time. Jane Roe was the pseudonym of the woman wanting the abortion; Henry Wade the district attorney who stood for the state, prohibiting it. Roe was represented by two attorneys; one was Linda Coffee, a member of the SBC. The Baptist Press interviewed her after the successful conclusion of the trial. The decision of Roe v Wade was generally regarded as a good one by the SBC. To evangelicals of that time abortion was seen as a Catholic issue. You can find a list of abortion-related resolutions made by the SBC from 1971 onwards  here . It is clear that in 1971 they saw abortion - quite reasonably - as undesirable, but it ...
Read more

Hinman's "Argument From Transcendental Signifier"

ETA (23/Jun/20): I have just heard Joe is in hospital. I wish him a speedy recovery. All the best, Joe. This is an argument for God that Joe Hinman has presented several times on various of his sites: http://www.doxa.ws/Ontological/TS2.html https://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2020/05/transcendental-signifier-argument.html http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2011/06/transcendental-signifier-argument.html http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2018/01/premises-4-7-ts-argumet.html The argument is a seven step syllogism: 1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops) 2. OP's summed up in TS 3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind. 4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe. 5. minds organize and communicate meaning 6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS 7. Concept of God unites TS with universal m...
Read more

Kent Hovind: Third wife in three years?

Kent Hovind is, perhaps the very worst of the creationists, so it is with some interest I note that he is now on this third wife in three years. For many years he was married to Jo Hovind, who ended up going to prison for a year due to her involvement in tax fraud. Once Kent got released from his rather longer prison sentence, it was not long before Jo filed for divorce (early 2016) - possibly to distance himself from any further gaol sentences. A few months later, 24th Sptember 2016, and he married Mary Tocco - not a full marriage, but a covenant before God. It looks like she got various assurances that Kent's new business was entirely honest before she got married. However, she later cam to realise that that was not really the case, and, again to avoid ending up in prison , she left him in November 2017. http://kehvrlb.com/mary-tocco-on-leaving-kent-hovind Less than a year later and he has a new wife, Cindi Lincoln, a former friend of Mary's. It is not clear if they ...
Read more