The Deistic God

Definitions: By God, I mean the Creator of the universe. The non-contingent Mind in which we are and which willed the universe into being. By consciousness, I mean self-awareness in humans. Preamble My argument is simply from consciousness. For in the unlikely event, that all we see in Nature arose without purpose, and by a combination of chance and natural laws, consciousness in humans must be explainable from a naturalistic standpoint. I don't think atheists address it. I think they ignore or misundertand it and how it weighs much in favor as the evidence for God. Consciousness is very crucial because without it we can't know anything. Without it, the senses mean nothing. Anybody who has thought about it knows it's one thing for you hear and another to listen. In other words, you can receive sensory input and be unconscious of the fact. As it applies to consciousness, the atheist's argument confuses consciousness with processes in the brain that (partly) account for it. Chalmers' argument of a philosophical zombie is important here [1]. In it, he argues that humans can act the way they do without being conscious of the fact. This is valid reasoning because it has clear precedents in the behaviour of babies, in sleep walking, and in well-known cases where (during a momentary lapse of attention) we become unconscious of what we do. So, the self-awareness of our actions, or those we are yet to do violates the fact that matter is unconscious. I have concluded that if the case for God must be made then the materialist stance on consciousness must be shown to be lacking. It is then that one can be free to see God as the only valid means we can make sense out of the universe and purpose in it. My argument is a two-pronged. The first to show a causal gap, the second to show why God fills that gap. The First Part P1) Matter lacks consciousness. P2) The physical universe is made up of matter. P3) Humans (and their brain) are made up of matter. Observation: Humans possess consciousness. Conclusion: There is a causal gap that needs to be explained. How do physical events in the brain lead to the subjective experience of consciousness humans are familiar with ? Explanation: The reason for my conclusion is simple. As far as we know physical processes lead to effects that are physically observed, at least in principle. For example, dark matter is inferred from its effects on light and galaxies, and it is also detectable in principle. The fact that material causes have veritable material effects is fundamental to science. But in consciousness we have two dilemmas: how can physical processes in the brain result in 'something' that is immaterial ? Furthermore, how is this 'something' self-aware, and knows itself and other things ? We are very familiar with it but it isn't to be taken for granted. And the fact is, while it does happen in humans and other organisms, physical processes don't account for self-awareness and the knowledge that comes with it since matter lacks both in the first instance. Emergent property doesn't explain it because the only emergent property matter effects are other materials with different physical properties eg hydrogen and oxygen result in liquid water. But self-awareness isn't physical, it is mental and is in a well-known class of its own. With that in mind let's see why God is necessary to close that gap, which by the way is a crucial gap, because consciousness is the seat of rationality or knowing of any sort. The Final Part 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 (given P1 and P2). Observation: Conscious beings come from conscious beings (as generally seen in mammals). Conclusion: I postulate that God is responsible for consciousness in humans. Explanation: The bone of contention here would be P3. But P3 follows because if the cause consciousness is caused like humans and other organisms are, it is contingent on matter, and its consciousness needs explanation. So it must be uncaused. If it is unconscious (as Sswdm would like) we have a causal gap that still begs for explanation. How did consciousness come from what doesn't have it ? The best that can be done is to pressuppose consciousness is a material property, which is disingenous. Because it suggests I'm talking with a robot, and on a serious note, gets at the heart of why people think atheism is purposeless: it denies the very thing by which anyone has purpose (ie consciousness). If you say consciousness is material, and deny that it is immaterial then it follows it that you deny consciousness as a subjective experience which isn't material, and which is precisely what we mean by consciousness. The fact that consciousness depends on the brain is accepted by most people. What they won't accet is that they aren't conscious or that their consciousness is illusory. It is worthy to note that unconscious people of any stance (eg theist etc) or state (eg asleep or dead) can't ask, talkless answer the question. Possible objections Since we've argued on this before I'm aware that Con doesn't believe consciousness is immaterial, although he admits that concepts are immaterial. I don't think his position explains consciousness; he can only assume it evolved. 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. I have already explained why insisting that consciousness is material falls short. The experience of consciousness isn't something that is physical, no more than unconsciousness is physical. Other objections may then try to attack the final part. But I think this wouldn't help Con's stance. The debate on God's existence is based on a fundamental dichotomy when it comes to explaining the universe. 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. Hence, any objection which attacks the second part and leaves out the first concedes the causal gap I point out initially, and this would be fatal to Con's position. Reference(s): [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...