It is currently Dec 24, 2009 6:23 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]



Welcome
Welcome to the Atheist Apologist!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and upload content. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Argument from Consciousness
PostPosted: Oct 19, 2009 6:05 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: May 09, 2007 1:53 pm
Posts: 928
Location: Ontario
In Post 111 in Another Atheist Returning to Christianity, Harvey argues that a "returning atheist" is evidence of the existence of God. In what follows, I show how none of this is evidence for God's existence. I begin with Jihanne's opening post.

Johanne wrote:
What convinced me? Well, probably, the Argument from Consciousness, and especially, the private notes from the late Mother Teresa.


For some reason, Don [Johanne] was convinced that because humans and other sentient beings have consciousness, there must be a God of the Bible. He does not explain how "consciousness in sentient beings" leads to the "God of the Bible." We know for a fact that "intelligence" can be artificially manufactured to the extent that programs such as Amazon uses can predict accurately what books I might like to buy. I am seldom disappointed by Amazon's suggestions; the program really does work.

He does not tell us what specific content of the notes convinced him. I seem to remember from earlier reading that Mother Theresa said something in the notes about not being able to perceive God. Sam Harris came to a very opposite conclusion as did Don.

It would seem as somehow compelling evidence that God does not exist if even Mother Theresa, in her lifelong dedication to God, could not perceive him. What is more shocking than all that is her Father Confessor's response that she should accept this as okay. To me, at first, that is permission from the top human authorities that God does not exist.

However, I realize that this was a misunderstanding on my part. The Father Confessor meant that if she could not perceive God's presence, probably Christ could not perceive God's presence, either. (My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me!) And she should think of this, and console herself with the thought that Jesus was willing to give himself anyway, despite being unable to feel God's presence. My guess is that these are the "private notes" of Mother Theresa that Don refers to.

Factually, however, these notes are evidence of nothing more than this one woman's experience and beliefs, etc. If God exists, he could--and should--make himself manifest to humans today just like he used to in biblical days to his people and disciples. The Bible promises that he will do so.

Johanne wrote:
Faith need not be absolute. I can admit that I could be wrong. So, on Dawkins' scale, I would put myself around the 2.5 to 3.0 mark.


That first line really grabs my attention: Faith need not be absolute. So you put your entire life on hold, and the lives of your children and grandchildren. You deny life and education and social progress to the rest of the world--all based on the fact that you could be wrong and that God might exist.

Put hundreds of millions of such people into two of the world's most barbarous--and wealthy but uneducated-- countries and you get endless warfare, i.e. the United States and Iraq, and the United States and Afghanistan.

Please! Look at what religion is doing to our planet and its inhabitants.

None of this, however, proves that any kind of God exists. In fact, it proves quite the opposite! Either the Muslim God, the Jewish God, or the Christian God should have manifested himself by now IF he existed. That no god of any kind has intervened throughout the entire twentieth century of world wars, or this decade of terrorism, proves that there is no god who could intervene even if he wanted to.

Prove me wrong!

Post 113

Human consciousness is electromagnetic activity in the physical brain. So is artificial intelligence in machines. We may not yet have learned how to make machines that can "think" quite as effectively as humans, but we know how to improve human neural functioning with the aid of computer chips. From a scientific or factual perspective, I dare say the line between consciousness and intelligence is very thin. I do not believe that machines are self-conscious in that they can experience pain or have an understanding of the self in the sense that humans and some animals can. Obviously, statistical analysis is used to program Amazon to show what books a person is likely to buy, based on choices made, i.e. "People who bought [this book] also bought [this book]."

My Point: Since consciousness is electromagnetic neural activity on the brain in the same manner as artificial intelligence is electromagnetic activity in machines that can be manufactured by humans, I see zero evidence for God in consciousness. Even if this were not the case with manufactured machines, I would still be incapable of accepting consciousness as evidence for God. Humans just are this way, with or without God. If God wishes to manifest himself he must do so from outside any naturally occurring phenomenon, as promised in the Bible.

In the Bible, God can split the sea when Moses or Elijah strike it with their cloaks. God can raise the dead and heal the sick. Jesus can turn water to wine. Jesus can walk on water. He can fly off to heaven. He can multiply a few loaves of bread and fishes into vast amounts of food that would eradicate starvation in Africa. None of these things happen today. This despite the fact that Jesus promised that his disciples would do greater miracles than he. There is so much missionary activity in Africa, it should be the most prosperous land on earth, if the Bible promises were true. HIV, AIDS, and STDs should all be healed by a touch or the shadow of a missionary falling on a sick person, like that of Peter.

Bad wells should be purified by Old Testament means of casting a tree into it (I'm not sure of the details; it happened in the wilderness when they found water that was not good). In deserts, God's followers should be able to strike a rock with a stick and get water for humans and animals alike.

If these kinds of miracles consistently followed the people professing beliefs in God, and not any other people, then it would be pretty obvious that God existed. I read a story of the time of the plague in Medieval Europe and the Middle East. A king who was not very pious was convicted that possibly it was his sinful ways that brought on the plague. He started a pilgrimage to Rome or wherever to repent and mend his ways. While on his way, word was brought to him of believers also dying. He gave up in despair and returned home. This was evidence to him that God either didn't exist or didn't care what people believed or how they lived; the pious and impious alike were dying by the droves.

Those are some ways in which God could manifest himself if he wanted to. Obviously, though, one prerequisite would be for him to exist.

_________________
~RSM
P.S. I do my own thinking.
visit our Website
Website includes resources for deconversion & links to secular groups.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Donate Now
Donate Now

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Hosted by FreeForums.org | Create a free forum

SD_Chilean v2.0.3 desgined by SinDramas.com