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 the Christian apologist J.P. Moreland.[1] See: Atheism and consciousness
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 could not originate through blind natural forces, 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[edit]
British ex-atheist Anthony Flew on the argument from consciousness[edit]
The British ex-atheist Anthony Flew in his book There is a God, points to the existence of consciousness as a problem for atheists.[3]
Atheists on the problem of consciousness[edit]
Scientific American quote of physicist Marcelo Gleisler on atheism and consciousness[edit]
Scientific American quote of physicist Marcelo Gleisler on atheism and consciousness
Objections to the argument from consciousness[edit]
- Infinite regress is allowable both in modern mathematics and physics.
- The previous 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[edit]
External links[edit]