Difference between revisions of "Argument from consciousness"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Objections)
(Objections)
Line 17: Line 17:
 
===Objections===
 
===Objections===
  
* This argument fails to address [[gestalt consciousness]].
+
* 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]]).  
 
* [[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.
 
* Infinite regress is allowable both in modern mathematics and physics.

Revision as of 21:49, 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

  • 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:

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.

External links

See also

Notes