Difference between revisions of "Argument from consciousness"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 30: Line 30:
 
* Infinite regress is allowable both in modern mathematics and physics.
 
* 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 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.
−
 
−
== External links ==
 
−
 
−
*[https://www.closertotruth.com/units/argument-consciousness Argument from Consciousness] -  8 videos
 
  
 
== See also ==
 
== See also ==

Revision as of 22:07, August 13, 2019

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.[1] See: Atheism and consciousness

Professor 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 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 consciousnes

Objections to the argument from 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.

See also

Notes