Argument from consciousness

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The argument from consciousness is an argument for the existence of God based on the problems consciousness poses for the atheistic worldview. The best-known defender of the argument from consciousness is the Christian apologist J.P. Moreland.[1] See: Atheism and consciousness

John Piippo summarizes Moreland's argument from consciousness thusly:

J.P. is one of the best teachers I have ever encountered. His writing is crisp-clear. He's a brilliant thinker. He understands the relevant issues. Ultimately, this argument succeeds as an example of abductive reasoning:
  • 1) irreducible consciousness exists
  • 2) the best explanation for irreducible consciousness is either theism or naturalism
  • 3) it's not naturalism.
  • 4) therefore, theism is the most probable explanation for the existence of irreducible consciousness.[2]

Other explanation of the argument from consciousness:

  • Nature consists of a finite number of elements.
  • We (our physical bodies) consist of those elements.
  • The elements themselves which we consist of, and nature itself, have no consciousness.
  • Despite our elements themselves having no consciousness, we do.
  • Consciousness could not originate through blind natural forces, therefore there must be a being who supply that to us.
  • Infinite regress of beings is illogical, therefore a single, uncaused causer must be the causer of consciousness.
  • This uncaused causer of the conscience is God

Professor John Piippo on the argument from consciousnes

British ex-atheist Anthony Flew on the argument from consciousness

The British ex-atheist Anthony Flew in his book There is a God, points to the existence of consciousness as a problem for atheists.[3]

Atheists on the problem of consciousness

Scientific American quote of physicist Marcelo Gleisler on atheism and consciousness

Scientific American quote of physicist Marcelo Gleisler on atheism and consciousness

Objections to the argument from consciousness

  • Infinite regress is allowable both in modern mathematics and physics.
  • The previous point (that the uncaused causer is God) is unsupported unless it is taken as a statement of definition. If this is the case, the prior arguments are unnecessary.

See also

External links