Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,424
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Argument from consciousness (view source)
Revision as of 21:34, August 13, 2019
, 21:34, August 13, 2019Created page with "thumbnail|170px|right|[[J.P. Moreland ]] The argument from consciousness is an argument for the existence of God based on the problems consciousness p..."
[[File:JP Moreland.jpg|thumbnail|170px|right|[[J.P. Moreland]] ]]
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 [[J.P. Moreland]].<ref>[http://www.johnpiippo.com/2012/03/argument-from-consciousness-for.html The Argument from Consciousness for the Existence of God] by [[John Piippo]], 3/20/2012</ref> See: [[Atheism and 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 can not happen by chance, 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 consciousness:
*[http://www.johnpiippo.com/2012/03/argument-from-consciousness-for.html The Argument from Consciousness for the Existence of God] by [[John Piippo]]
*[http://www.johnpiippo.com/2014/04/one-of-atheisms-irresolvable-problems.html Consciousness: One of Atheism's Irresolvable Problems] by John Piippo
===Objections===
* This argument fails to address [[gestalt consciousness]].
* [[Evolutionists]] typically argue that consciousness may happen by chance. However, this is highly illogical and unlikely, so is yet another weak argument for atheism (see: [[Atheism and irrationality]]).
* Infinite regress is allowable both in modern mathematics and physics.
* The last 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.
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 [[J.P. Moreland]].<ref>[http://www.johnpiippo.com/2012/03/argument-from-consciousness-for.html The Argument from Consciousness for the Existence of God] by [[John Piippo]], 3/20/2012</ref> See: [[Atheism and 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 can not happen by chance, 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 consciousness:
*[http://www.johnpiippo.com/2012/03/argument-from-consciousness-for.html The Argument from Consciousness for the Existence of God] by [[John Piippo]]
*[http://www.johnpiippo.com/2014/04/one-of-atheisms-irresolvable-problems.html Consciousness: One of Atheism's Irresolvable Problems] by John Piippo
===Objections===
* This argument fails to address [[gestalt consciousness]].
* [[Evolutionists]] typically argue that consciousness may happen by chance. However, this is highly illogical and unlikely, so is yet another weak argument for atheism (see: [[Atheism and irrationality]]).
* Infinite regress is allowable both in modern mathematics and physics.
* The last 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.