Difference between revisions of "Argument from consciousness"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Conservative (talk | contribs) (→Notes) |
Conservative (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
{{Cquote|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: | {{Cquote|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 | + | *1) [[Irreducible complexity|irreducible]] consciousness exists |
*2) the best explanation for irreducible consciousness is either theism or [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]] | *2) the best explanation for irreducible consciousness is either theism or [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]] | ||
*3) it's not naturalism. | *3) it's not naturalism. | ||
Revision as of 22:17, 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:
|
” |
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
- The Argument from Consciousness for the Existence of God by John Piippo
- Consciousness: One of Atheism's Irresolvable Problems by John Piippo
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
- Atheism and the brain
- Atheism and reason
- Atheism and critical thinking
- Atheism and knowledge
- Atheism and irrationality
- Atheism and logic
- Atheism and transhumanism
- Atheism and intelligence
External links
- How Consciousness Points to the Existence of God - Cold-Case Christianity with J. Warner Wallace