RE: Argument against atheism
December 20, 2011 at 5:36 pm
(This post was last modified: December 20, 2011 at 5:43 pm by Darwinning.)
(December 20, 2011 at 2:29 pm)Perhaps Wrote: "emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions."
I'm not sure how his argument would falter even if it was an emergent property. It would only be emergent from the functions of the universe which can only be explained (or even observed) from consciousness.
As I interpret it, the argument requires consciousness to be a primary function of the universe, all-pervasive and everywhere. The fact that a property can emerge from a set of rules does not imply that is will always emerge, or that the rules somehow contain that property.
"Snowflakes forming complex symmetrical patterns is an example of emergence in a physical system."
Would you say that all water is snow? Would you consider snow to be a primary property of water? (I'm not even sure snow exists; it's just a label I use for that white stuff that's cold.)
(December 20, 2011 at 2:29 pm)Perhaps Wrote: "... therefore: if one believes in objective reality, one must have confidence that consciousness not influenced by personal feelings or interpretations exists independently of the ideas which concern it even though consciousness is not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. If one believes in consciousness then one must believe consciousness is a function of the universe acting on everything within the universe and the universe itself. That belief would correctly be called a belief in "God", a being which is eternal and transcendent, creator and ruler of all and infinite in all attributes."
Even if consciousness is emergent, it still acts on everything within the universe and the universe itself. It is the only thing which, essentially, 'allows' the universe to exist. For what is existence if there is nothing to observe it being in existence?
(December 20, 2011 at 2:29 pm)Perhaps Wrote: Even if consciousness is emergent, it still acts on everything within the universe and the universe itself.
Not in my view. All that is required is a physical reality from which consciousness could arise. I could be that consciousness and look around me and say "wow, that all looks really complicated".
(December 20, 2011 at 2:29 pm)Perhaps Wrote: It is the only thing which, essentially, 'allows' the universe to exist. For what is existence if there is nothing to observe it being in existence?
Does a bear shit in the woods?
This seems like a self-centered "the universe only exists because I see it" argument to me. Also, essentially idealism. Which is fine, if that is what you believe.
(December 20, 2011 at 4:10 pm)Perhaps Wrote: Without the conscious mind, what exists? Existence is ontological which necessitates a mind or thought. You couldn't even presume that physicality or naturalism was true without consciousness.
Without ears, you could not listen. That would not mean there is no sound.
(December 20, 2011 at 3:04 pm)amkerman Wrote: If consciousness actually is an emergent function of complex systems, my argument still holds water I think. My argument is based on what people believe to be true, it is not based on what is true in reality.
But ...
(December 20, 2011 at 11:40 am)amkerman Wrote: If consciousness is believed to be objectlvely real, it would correctly be termed a function of the universe
Functions of the universe are believed to bind all matter within the universe
- they pervade everything, nothing has been observed in the universe which is not bound by the universes own laws
I believe consciousness is real, but because it may be emergent it does not necessarily "bind all matter within the universe" or "pervade everything". Just as snowflakes do not bind all water.
