It's metaphysically impossible to be alone (II)

In my previous post I explained that the conclusion of my semantic argument entails that it's metaphysically impossible to be the only object in the world. One might argue that this swift consequence is counterintuitive. Isn't it highly implausible that there are no possible worlds that contain only one object? No, it isn't. Take some possible world w. Since total nothingness is metaphysically impossible, there exists an object in w. This object is plausibly either a piece of matter, a mind or a piece of information. If it's material, it exists in space and time. Given that space or time or parts thereof have objecthood, w contains more than one object. If it's a mind, w also contains more than one object. For the mental contents of a mind count reasonably as mental objects. Finally, if the object is a piece of information, then it is discursive and therefore composed of multiple information elements. But then again w contains more than one object. So in all cases w contains more than one object. Since w was arbitrarily chosen, there are no possible worlds that contain only one object. Said consequence of my semantic argument thus isn't implausible.

It's metaphysically impossible to be alone

Years ago I argued in this brief paper that the empty world is not a possible world. That is to say, total nothingness is metaphysically impossible. Now, the conclusion of my semantic argument, namely that all positive universally held properties are necessarily universally held, entails that it is also metaphysically impossible to be the only object in the world. In other words, there are no possible worlds that contain only one object. I briefly show how this follows. Consider the property 'being together with others'. This property is clearly positive and universally held. But then it is also necessarily universally held. Hence it is universally held in all possible worlds. So it is indeed metaphysically impossible to be alone in the world.

Is God necessarily necessarily good?

On mainstream theism God has his properties necessarily. Take one of these properties, say, goodness. Theists normally hold that God is necessarily good. It is simply impossible for God not to be good. But is God also necessarily necessarily good? That is to say, although God is in fact necessarily good, could it have been otherwise? Could reality have been such that God is not necessarily good? And if not, is that necessarily so?

From God's possible to God's necessary existence

It seems reasonable to define God as a conscious being that is the first cause of reality. Being the first cause, God is uncaused. Suppose that God possibly exists. In that case there is a possible world w in which God exists. According to Leibniz's weak principle of sufficient reason (wPSR) there must be a sufficient reason for every thing that exists.* So, following this principle, there must be a reason in w for Gods existence. God exists in w either by virtue of its own nature, or due to an external cause. Since God is uncaused in w it follows that God exists by virtue of its own nature in w. That is to say, God exists necessarily in w. But then, assuming S5 modal logic, it follows that God exists in all possible worlds. So God exists necessarily. Therefore, given wPSR and S5, Gods possible existence entails Gods necessary existence.

(*) Note that this is indeed a weak version of Leibniz' principle, since it is not claimed that there is a sufficient reason for each fact or state of affairs. It is "merely" claimed that every existing thing (i.e., object or entity) has a reason for its existence.

An alternative account of evolutionary theism

In philosophical and theological literature various accounts of evolutionary theism can be found. They all agree on the basic premise that God actualized the cosmos in such a way that natural evolution would necessarily emerge. But for the rest significant differences between these accounts exist. For example, some have it that the process of evolution is not autonomous since God is continuously "guiding" the process of natural evolution into a certain direction, while others maintain that God has set the initial conditions of the cosmos such that natural evolution would necessarily lead to mankind. It seems to me that these accounts are in conflict with the autonomous and unpredictable character of natural evolution. In what follows I provide a brief sketch of an alternative account of evolutionary theism, one that respects the autonomous and unpredictable character of natural evolution, while giving proper sense to the theistic claim that mankind is the image of God.

First, let us suppose that genuine randomness is not an objective feature of reality, which is a metaphysical claim that I have argued for elsewhere. Second, as I have also argued for in other texts, let us assume that dualism is true, that is, let us assume that consciousness possibly exists. In other words, let us assume that there are possible worlds in the Kripkean sense within which consciousness irreducibly exists and thus cannot be reduced to matter. Third, as I also argue for elsewhere, let us presume that libertarian free will possibly exists, and, moreover, that being a conscious agent is a necessary condition for being an agent endowed with libertarian free will.

Now, on the account I propose God actualized the cosmos in such a way that it initially contained nothing but space, time and matter (or energy which can be taken to be equivalent to matter). Hence, consciousness and libertarian free were not actual: they did not exist in the actual world. This state of affairs implies, since it is taken that genuine randomness is not an objective feature of the world, that the cosmos was initially entirely deterministic. Every event was by natural law causally predetermined by the chain of previous events causally related to it.

But then also the process of natural evolution itself, that, as mentioned, necessarily originated at some point in time, was initially wholly deterministic and therefore in principle, for any agent endowed with sufficient calculation power, entirely predictable.

Further, on the proposed account God, at the very beginning of the cosmos, conceived, perhaps by imagination, a specifc collection of basic non-conscious life forms that he wanted natural evolution to bring about. So, since God can be assumed to be an agent powerful enough to predict any future state of a deterministic system, and, since the cosmos was in fact initially deterministic, we may infer that He set the initial conditions of the cosmos in such a way that these forms indeed necessarily would evolve by means of the autonomous process of natural evolution.

Subsequently, once the basic non-conscious life forms that God originally wanted to bring about finally evolved, it is conceivable that God intentionally endowed a subset of these forms with a rudimentary level of consciousness and libertarian free will, so that, from that very moment, the further material and mental evolution of all life forms became unpredictable, even for God.

In addition, on the proposed view, God knew from his understanding of the nature of space, time, matter and consciousness that the further process of natural evolution, although in its details totally unpredictable, was nevertheless guaranteed to lead eventually to the coming into existence of some highly complex, self-conscious, libertarian free and sentient life form endowed with a significant level of intuition, empathy and reason. So although God did not know upfront how such a life form would look like, what shape it would take and what further attributes it would have, He at least knew that such a life form would inevitably evolve.

As the proposed view continues, after this life form finally evolved, it is conceivable that God intentionally chose it as the proper life form to which He would reveal Himself at some point in its further development. And, on the proposed account, the life form eventually chosen by God is mankind. Therefore, mankind is, on this view, an image of God in the sense that it was the life form chosen by God, the life form God decided to make Himself known to.

So, on the alternative view of evolutionary theism explored above, mankind was in fact not intentionally designed and created, but instead intentionally selected by God in the course of natural evolution. Mankind was originally chosen by God in the same way as He would later on in history choose the people of Israel and all of its prophets, and centuries later, Jesus would choose each of his disciples. Thus, the alternative account of evolutionary theism not only respects the autonomous and unpredictable character of natural evolution, but also accords with one of the most central themes found in Scripture.