The Deistic God

Preface This is my final post in this debate and, hopefully, it has been informative and refreshing for both parties. As I have insisted, what is in contention here are presuppositions. The problem is which one is the more rational one to take. Why not the one more consistent with rationality ? There are three basic reasons interspersed through my arguments on why Con's take on consciousness fails. I will be exploring that and will afford myself of one last chance to show why God_the deist God_is not just a good theory but possibly the best theory. I think I have already dealt with the main points my opponent has made in his previous argument; I will simply post ripostes to them. Why Materialism (As Regards The Mind) Is Not A Good Theory 1) It is an equivocation: Con has repeated throughout this debate that consciousness is the simply physical processes in the brain. This is false. To press in that point I specifically mentioned that, as experienced, consciousness isn't physical, it is non-physical. The fact that Con agrees that humans possess an additional attribute over matter is a point I affirm. What I don't do is say it fully explains it. Unlike other attributes explained by matter eg smoothness, sharpness, colour etc, consciousness is different: it makes a set of materials aware of their existence amidst other abilities (eg creativity etc). This is a distinction Con isn't making. Moreso, the working brain also possesses physical qualities eg colour, smoothness (or lumpiness), mass, colour, voltage etc. These are qualities fully explained by the working brain, but consciousness isn't. 2) It lacks an explanation: I have noted previously that physical processes can't fully explain consciousness. As I have said elsewhere, this means that on one hand the brain can explain consciousness; since we know from repeated observation and experiment that we need brains to be conscious and how affecting the brain (eg with anaesthetics) affects consciousness. On the other hand, the brain doesn't explain consciousness for reasons I've made known here. It all boils down to the fact that physicochemical laws show that emergent properties are always physical (they result in new materials, material states or energy). But in the brains of living organisms and man especially, the emergent property is a subjective experience of consciousness. This is unprecedented and it's in my opinion a fundamental flaw in Con's stance; because if matter lacks consciousness and its emergent properties are physical, one would expect that we would be like robots. One can model our behaviours as humans eg writing articles, playing pianos, walking, cycling, inferential reasoning etc. But the awareness of these faculties cannot be modelled, and I think that nicely depicts my point. 3) It is an aberration: Simply put, it's absurd_like a square circle. I've already said that I class mind and matter as distinct and fundamental aspects of reality and noted that Con equivocates subjective conscious experience to activities in the brain. This violates the law of identity which requires a thing to be clearly identified. Just as it follows from their clearly identified properties, that squares aren't circles, or reducible to them; it also follows that consciousness isn't matter or reducible to it. For one, consciousness lacks dimensions like height which the brain possesses, neither is energy as used in science applicable to it (heat, kinetic, nuclear) etc. And unlike matter, consciousness displays intentionality, a property that matter lacks. Also you directly experience your consciousness, but you don't directly experience matter; you do so through your consciousness as it relates to the senses eg eyes, nose etc. This is a number of traits identifiable in consciousness which differ from physical objects and their properties eg smoothness. The article I reference states more on such properties [1]. So to say that material processes in the brain FULLY explains consciousness ignores fundamental differences between them and is akin to squaring a circle [2] Why The Deist's God Is A Good Theory I identified God as the non-contingent mind behind the universe in which we are and which willed it to being. Why do I say we exist in this mind ? Because all things must exist in space. Why do I say it willed the universe (or multiverse or megaverse, or all possible verses) into being ? Because it will be absurd to for a God which made the physical world, to make it by physical means. That would make an effect precede it's cause which is absurd. And if God is contingent on physical laws, he is not God and must either be a human or an alien. Like any theory, one can nit-pick its flaws or point out that God leaves more questions to be asked. But this is true of any theory. Relativity answered questions Newton's theory couldn't, but leaves questions open; for example, whether it could be unified into a coherent theory of quantum gravity. One may also say my theory is just a god-of-the-gaps. But as I've argued elsewhere, there will always be a gap. I think knowledge is infinite: a fact agnostics sometimes use to make their case. And because there's no limit to what we can know, there is more than enough gaps that can't be filled. We can start from sets of numbers, a possible multiverse etc But why go that far even when there is still so much about Earth we don't know, or never will because it's in the forgotten past ? Knowledge IMO is a cycle of questions on things and answers to be found which leave open more questions. And I think this is how science operates. Another reason why the God theory isn't a god-of-the gaps argument is in its causal nature. God is about final causes. IOW if we go high up the chain of causes where do we stop ? One can argue that causality is restricted within the natural and list examples of how advances in science pushes God back to the fringes. But must it ? Prominent thinkers of the Enlightenment era such as Locke, Descartes, Bacon and Spinoza were rationalists or empiricists who believed in applying reason and saw no conflict between a belief in God and science. Of interest is Bacon's thoughts on the matter: "For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." [3] This simply reinforces the point that God is the first cause (or final cause as Aristotle called it) in a chain of causes. The mistake people in the past made was to attribute second causes to God whereas they weren't. So disease were caused by God when He was angry_which is unevidenced. This is applicable even in science. For example, any disease humans suffer must be based on harm of some sort to the body. But just because of that doesn't mean its symptoms can't be misdiagnosed. Unfortunate accidents happen and peer-review in medical research and other administrative checks are put in place to stop that. Deism happened to take root about the Enlightenment era. But I would argue, like Paine, that the first God was the deist's God. Because if man was initially atheistic, or apatheistic, then his first knowledge of God may not have had any religion built around it before shamanism, paganism etc came into play. It might have just been a simple inference to God. Deism takes the best of atheism and religion. Deists are more or less skeptical of the claims of revealed religions, more so than its adherents; but it does that without disbelieving in a deity. It is instructive to note that in various debates, atheists will make the claim that it is one thing to make the case for a Creator God (which is all deism posits) than it is to make the case for the God of a particular religion eg Christianity or Islam. Deists are parsimonious in that we have one less claim to argue for, but not so much as too defer knowledge (as agnostics do), or dismiss good arguments made for a God (as Aquinas did). We do not throw the baby with the bathwater, and I believe I have made arguments here that any honest theist can agree to. A Few Words On Con's Arguments * on causal gap: as I said in Round 2 "Consciousness is certainly an additional attribute over matter." And I detailed why physical processes don't fully explain it. * on material consciousness: Electricity isn't an object, but its a flow of electrons or ions. I was thinking Con would bring something more specific in the brain which accounts for consciousness as I did when talking on the brain stem. As for my BoP I think I have met it but Con isn't content with it. * I had already agreed in Round 2 that there are is a progression of consciousness in the animal kingdom correlated to the brain as Con describes. How that impinges on P4 of my argument is unknown to me. Is Con simply asserting it ? * on brain-dead births: It's bad that Con is special pleading from ignorance away from P4 which is an observed fact. The fact that Con has to use my response to a hypothetical scenario he proposed doesn't help his case. In any case, if without the help of a conscious being an unconscious being (that was never conscious) birthed a conscious being, P4 would be falsified. * on evolution: What more can I say ? I believe consciousness is immaterial. Evolution is a material process so I don't think it can explain consciousness even in principle. Cognition, yes; but not consciousness. Conclusion I hope I have made a good case to observers for a deist's God. My goal is that, at least, the way I (and like-minded people) infer a God from the natural world will be clarified and maybe plant a seed of belief in Con and other atheists. I will end with a favorite quote of mine which concurs with my take on God: "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." - Max Planck (Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944)) References [1] http://www.consciousnessmatters.com... [2] http://mathforum.org... [3] http://www.authorama.com...