Difference between revisions of "Argument from consciousness"

Revision as of 21:58, August 13, 2019

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.^[1] See: Atheism and consciousness

Professor John Phiippo summarizes Moreland's argument from consciousness thusly: {{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 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

• 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.

External links

• Argument from Consciousness - 8 videos

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

Notes