The Deistic God

Regards: Thanks to Pro for his prompt & spirited opening arguments. I can't promise I can be quite as prompt with all my rebuttals, but I will give it my best attempt. Burden of Proof: Of course I must re-iterate, the BoP is on Pro to demonstrate that a God according the definition Pro has provided exists. ‘Causal Gap argument’ Unfortunately Pro’s conclusion goes farther than his premises will take him, and is attempting to take for granted which isn’t rightfully argued for. Let’s revisit the argument: P1.) Matter lacks consciousness. P2.) The physical universe is made up of matter. P3.) Humans (and their brain) are made up of matter. P4.) Humans possess consciousness. The working definition of matter I am using is: “The substance of which a physical object is composed” [1] The correct conclusion is simply: C.) Human’s possess an additional attribute over matter, i.e. the substance from which the physical object is composed, or assembled. This argument, can be made for virtually any attribute that macroscopic objects possess which are not applied to the matter these objects are composed of. Sharpness Smoothness State Chemical Bonding Etc. A very important distinction one must make in these attributes is that they are entirely descriptive of the physical state the object in question is. The removal of a single molecule will change an object’s sharpness, smoothness, shininess etc., and I will argue it’s very much the same for consciousness. Conciousness: Of course I am never going to be able to answer this in this debate when it’s an entire field of science. From what we do know however, consciousness is entirely based upon physical processes occurring from within the brain. Furthermore, we see examples of consciousness all throughout the animal kingdom at varying levels of complexity. The common chimpanzee for example, possesses similar types of neurones to us humans [2] and other fellow primates, and is self-aware and is capable of some higher-level functions usually attributed to humans. These being able to respond to questions in sign language[3]. Furthermore they are known to make & use tools. We can follow the animal kingdom to lesser intelligent examples, to cats, to fish to ants and leeches. What is seen is a reduction in the complexity and sophistication in the level of cognition. Responses become more reactive, and ‘programmed’ and less This scales roughly with the number of neurons present in each species’ brain[4]: Humans: 85,000,000,000 Chimpanzee: 6,700,000,000 Cat: 1,000,000,000 Ant: 71,000,000 Leech: 10,000 Therefore, I would like to challenge the preconceptions behind the following premise: P4.) Humans possess consciousness. As it presumes consciousness is something you can have, or have-not. And is akin to ‘having temperature’ or ‘having speed’. These properties are all emergent from the complex interactions of matter with physical processes, such as spacial & temporal dimensions, force carriers etc. I would argue that he ‘causal gap’ is nothing more than begging an explanation for any macroscopic property. Now, onto the second part of Pro’s argument.: P1.) Matter can't account for consciousness since it lacks it (my previous arguments back this premise). P2.) There can't be an infinite regress of conscious beings (life on earth isn't eternal). P3.) The cause of consciousness in conscious beings must be uncaused and conscious (P1 & P2) P4.) Conscious beings come from conscious beings (as generally seen in mammals). C.) I postulate that God is responsible for consciousness in humans. This argument suffers a multitude of issues: 1.Fallacy of composition From P1, Pro argues that the ‘parts’ are representative of the ‘whole’. While a single molecule of water cannot account for ‘puddleness’, a puddle is what we assign to a particular quantity, state, and orientation of a mass of water molecules. Similarly in consciousness, this is simply a state that is assigned to a particular configuration of matter and its macroscopic properties. 2.Has/Has not dichotomy. The reducibility of. I have already discussed how having something that is demonstrably reducible is a nonsensical argument, the naturalistic argument for how 3.Conscious beings come from conscious beings The lack of specificity in my opponent’s language makes it hard to find Pro’s precise point. And will allow the audience to fill in the gaps in explanation with their own presuppositions. This will make this debate a waste of time. Addressing this argument on the face of it, we have examples of brain-dead patients who have given birth to healthy children [5]. Furthermore I would like to propose the following (admittedly grotesque) thought experiment, and potential empirical test for Pro’s claims. Take a male & female foetus (which we will agree has never been conscious), induce brain death in both but maintain the vitals and allow to full development to puberty. Then via IVF or some other process implant an egg from the female, fertilized by the sperm of the brain-dead male. Would the female be able to give birth to a conscious child. By taking P3 at face value, this should not be possible, but I would beg to ask what is the mechanism that prevents this from occurring. What mechanism ‘passes on consciousness’ from parent to child? When the science suggests it’s entirely based upon physical processes. 4.Argument ad ignorantum Let’s assume there is no satisfactory answer from Naturalism/Physicalism yet, what then? The current failure to explain something does in no way lend to the credence to the existence of a deity. This exact same argument can be made for ‘alive’ with the same justification. Just because one cannot yet explain the origin of something doesn’t mean it’s rational to postulate answers where there is no evidence for such. Evolutionary Origins: In evolution we see that many of the structures, traits and characteristics are reducible to simpler and simpler origins. Essentially everything from the eye, to the blood clotting cascade are very plausibly derived from simpler systems, I would like to ask Pro how this does not apply to consciousness, and what is the mechanism for preventing such? Conclusion: I am actually quite impressed by Pro’s arguments, and look forward to reading his rebuttals. References: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.ted.com... [3] http://www.newscientist.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...