The Deistic God

Thanks Pro: I will quickly proceed to rebuttals and attempt to address the three main points my opponent has raised at the beginning of his round. ‘Causal Gap’: Do not forget the succinct, yet important correction of Pro’s initial 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. C.) Human’s possess an additional attribute over matter, i.e. the substance from which the physical object is composed, or assembled. This particular conclusion is one I actually accepted, however is appears Pro is trying to squeeze more out of the argument than the premises actually allow (presumably by still holding to his original conclusion which I have already demonstrated to be unsound). Of course most things known in physical reality do have an explanation for their various properties, which is why it’s reasonable to conclude a priori that consciousness is too also. Purely Physical Conciousness’ & Attributes: I asserted that consciousness is currently best understood purely as a result of the physical processes that occur within the brain, which the evidence as it stands seems to support. However Pro seems to be arguing for an additional substance (presumably immaterial) part of consciousness that is not a result of the physical processes within the brain. A priori, it is reasonable to apply Occum’s Razor to Pro’s argument, since a priori the hypothesis with fewest assumptions (physical) is more likely to be true than the one with more. I never stated consciousness was a physical object, but something that is reasonably completely understandable in light of purely physical processes, as is any other property as already mentioned, sharpness etc. No one will doubt that a knife’s ability to cut a carrot is purely a result of the general arrangement of the atoms within the blade, furthermore there is no ‘sharpness’ or ‘knifeness’ that is imbued into the object as Pro is attempting to claim is the case with consciousness. Pro has not given a response to this assertion, why can’t consciousness be a result of the physical processes we are familiar with? Given that we see properties emerging all the time absent of any ‘universal sharpness’ giving rise to sharp objected or ‘universal circuitry’ giving rise to circuits, therefore Pro’s claim of a ‘causal gap’ goes as I have already demonstrated, much farther than his premises allow. As for what these ‘attached concepts’ are, the properties that make an object sharp & smooth are the ones that concur with its definition, of course, as is the case with consciousness. Just because the processes that give rise to consciousness appear to be complex and clouded in our ability to discern individual mechanistic processes, doesn’t in any way take away from the utter fact that consciousness appears to be purely a result of the physical processes within our brains given the current evidence. I, of course cannot disprove that there is an external non-physical (or disembodied) consciousness moiety, but this is an additional assumption that Pro himself needs to justify, and not for myself not to, as the BoP is on him. A priori it is rational and logical to disbelieve this claim as per Occum’s Razor [1], since Pro is making the additional entity claim. Second Portion of Pro’s Argument: Upon reformulation using only the conclusion that he has demonstrated (and has given no rebuttal to, so I presume he accepts this is the genuine conclusion) we have the following syllogism: C1.) Human’s possess an additional attribute over matter, i.e. the substance from which the physical object is composed, or assembled. P2.) There can't be an infinite regress of conscious beings P3.) The cause of consciousness in conscious beings must be uncaused and conscious P4.) Conscious beings come from conscious beings C2.) This attribute must have come from God (uncaused & unconscious) As already argued, the way one accepts P3 & P4 are interconnected. Moreover it’s perfectly conceivable that the initial consciousness being was indeed a physical lifeform. Most likely the first physical lifeform whose experience of consciousness finally passed the threshold of what would be defined consciousness within evolution. Much the same way the ‘first human’ is the first such being which passes the (very blurred and poorly specified) specific definition of a human being. I have already argued that P4 is an unsound premise in light of the theory of evolution, which explains our origins arising from lesser intelligent (and presumably less aware) organisms, which is continued back linearly results in a lineage where at no specific point could one specify where consciousness first appeared given that it’s apparent that consciousness exists as a spectrum, instead of an on/off attribute. However, my just being able to conceive of an evolutionary pathway from simple>complex is enough to dispel P4, as it’s a statement that is based off very limited data (only the past few thousand years) over the long timescale of Earth’s history. 'Concious Beings come from Concious Beings’: Pro makes the following statement: “In the case of brain-dead people, I never claimed that a consciousness substance was passed down.” By admitting this then Pro effectively concedes that the statement ‘Concious beings come from conscious beings’ is purely an overgeneralized short-term observation which I already argued is unsound given that gradual progressive theories such as Evolution are ‘false’ by this short-term observation (cats from cats, humans from humans etc.). Given that we know of a number of unconscious organisms within the animal kingdom (starting with bacteria and working up to larger examples) that can indeed reproduce, feed, and grow then it fully stands to reason that there is absolutely no mechanism that prevents ‘unconcious’ beings giving rise to conscious ones. Pro would need to demonstrate that such a mechanism exists in order for this argument to work in the context of essentially any low/zero to high/one consciousness state. Reducability of Conciousness: Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason to accept that consciousness is a non-reducible entity as I elaborated in my opening arguments. We have numerous examples within our own animal kingdom who are conscious, but clearly fit a progressively and looser definition of what consciousness is which roughly scales with brain capacity. I have heard no rebuttal from my opponent regarding the quantitative/qualitative differences between a significantly less aware conscious being and human consciousness. If we accept that consciousness as experienced can vert plausibly come from progressively less self-aware, less intelligent iterations, then the entirety of premise 4 is invalid. One does not need to accept the theory of evolution to see this, as only a plausible conception of a process that could lead to consciousness would make this premise unsound given we have not directly observed even a small fraction of Earth’s history. In Defence of Evolution: My opponent’s objection to evolution was as follows: “I find this to be deficient since evolution boils down to mere material processes and so cannot possibly explain consciousness. It can explain the brain and how it works, but physical processes don't (fully) explain consciousness and the consequent ability to abstract concepts like truth from the physical world.” However I never accepted the premise that matter cannot possibly explain consciousness, not any less so than matter cannot explain other attributes as already argued. Moreover, ‘material processes’ is a very different animal to matter, and seems Pro is conceding that matter can have properties that matter alone would not possess without advent of any apparent ‘causal gap’ that Pro attempts to press. Also: “The one between idealism and materialism, while these two may intersect in certain ways eg theistic evolution, it doesn't make the dichotomy false. Hence, if Con's stance_which is materialistic_fails then mine is upheld by elimination.” Even this is a false dichotimy, with other views such as dualism [2] also being viable alternatives. Pro has the burden of proof in this debate and therefore needs to positively substantiate his own case. However his proof is a negative-proof that depends on physical processes being unable to account for the phenomena of consciousness. I will quickly concede that consciousness doesn’t have a comprehensive physical explanation yet HOWEVER that does not lend weight to any other theory. My inability to demonstrate how consciousness arises via purely physical processes should in no way influence the strength of an argument for the existence of God. But clearly it does in this debate, which is a red flag for one big argument ad ignorantum. References: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...'_razor