The consciousness argument ultimately posits that consciousness cannot have a cause that is itself not a consciousness. This is, in a way, an argument similar the Kalam cosmological argument; both address issues of causality and the original cause of certain things (the material world and consciousness respectively). Instead of arguing for an uncaused cause at the beginning of the causal chain, it argues for a consciousness--God--imbuing other things with consciousness--humans and animals. And this is where its weakness lies.
 |
| Consciousness could have originated from matter. |
It is true, despite the potential protests of some apologists, that nothing is logically impossible about consciousness emerging from a certain arrangement of matter [1], though other immaterial things besides consciousness exist that are not emergent (things like logic and space are strictly immaterial and exist by necessity independent of consciousness and matter, so it is not as if consciousness is the only immaterial thing [2]). Though the consciousness argument for God might seem a much stronger argument than, say, the transcendental, design, or desire arguments, which are examples of utter sophistry and nothing more [3], it still rests on an unverifiable premise: that consciousness cannot emerge from non-consciousness. This must be assumed; it cannot be proven. Therefore it does not follow by necessity that God exists because human or animal consciousness exists.
There is no evidential support for emergent naturalism regarding consciousness. And as I said, logic and space are both immaterial and mind-independent, so they neither depend on a consciousness nor on matter for their own necessary existences. Total metaphysical naturalism is utterly impossible. But there remains the logical possibility of matter causing consciousness to manifest. As I have explained elsewhere (see [1]), emergent naturalism could not erase the existence of the uncaused cause, which still exists even if the matter it created brought about consciousness and not itself directly, and it also would not change the fact that I do possess free will. My consciousness is still in control of my external bodily activities, like lifting my arms, save for in several cases (involuntary crying, for instance). I still have free will whether or not the uncaused cause directly imbued my species with consciousness and whether or not it was an arrangement of matter that human and animal consciousness originated from.
The logical proof of an uncaused cause remains the only actual confirmation of God's existence. Why Christian apologists continue to rely on other arguments, as if the conclusions followed from the premises and the premises were all demonstrably true, I don't know, and I also don't know why apologists emphasize speculative scientific models over strict logical and mathematical proofs when arguing that the universe had a beginning. But I do know that there is an uncaused cause [4], a deity, whether or not our consciousness was initially produced by it or by the matter it created.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/03/what-is-emergent-naturalism.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-impossibility-of-absolutely-nothing.html
[3]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/refuting-transcendental-argument-for-god.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/why-design-argument-fails.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/refuting-desire-argument-for-god.html
[4]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
No comments:
Post a Comment