The Primacy of Existence over Consciousness

[JMM]

Well, the same atheist friend (acquaintance, co-worker...whatever) who regaled me with the Euthyphro Dilemma earlier this week, has recently brought a new argument to the table, to add to our ongoing theological discussions. I thought I'd also bring THIS argument of his to the forum, to see if anyone can assist me in preparation of a rebuttal. Naturally, my atheist friend was arguing that creation was nonsense. (I'm not sure if this should be in the theology thread or the science thread; I'll leave that to the judgment of the mods.) Anyway, he was saying that it didn't matter whether it happened 6,000 years ago, or billions of years ago.....that no matter WHEN it supposedly happened, to say that the entire universe and all of existence was created by an intelligent being was nonsense.

This was his argument in a nutshell. Intelligence is the capacity to gather and integrate information. Before God created the universe, what information did his intelligence process? Where did he get that information? What was that information about? This, he said, is a principle called the Primacy of Existence over Consciousness. Consciousness is necessarily a process of knowing about something, and that process could not take place without some reality to know something about. He concludes that the world had to exist before there could be an intelligent being capable of designing ANYTHING.

So how do I answer him on this? Is there a good rebuttal for this argument?

 

[Drew]

This was his argument in a nutshell. Intelligence is the capacity to gather and integrate information. Before God created the universe, what information did his intelligence process? Where did he get that information? What was that information about? This, he said, is a principle called the Primacy of Existence over Consciousness. Consciousness is necessarily a process of knowing about something, and that process could not take place without some reality to know something about. He concludes that the world had to exist before there could be an intelligent being capable of designing ANYTHING.

So how do I answer him on this? Is there a good rebuttal for this argument?

I only thought about this for a minute and I do not have a direct answer.

For the time being, I would point out the "atheist" faces a similar dilemma. No matter what kind of "naturalistic" model one constructs, one is ultimately always faced with the problem of explaining the existence of something with nothing to "ground" that explanation in. I think this really the same problem as your atheist friend challenged you with, but it applies to his worldview as well.

Let me illustrate. Stephen Hawking has argued that the laws of quantum mechanics give a satisfactory explanation as to how the universe may have popped into existence without the need for "God" to create it. But, as Hawking himself fully concedes, a deep puzzle still remains - How do you explain the "existence" of the very laws of quantum mechanics? At some point, one invaiably runs into inexplcable mystery, no matter what world view one holds.

I am quite convinced that the atheist is in the same pickle as he thinks you are in.

 

[Rick W]

The power of creation.
Presenting human attributes, consciousness, sense of existence, is really the only source we have to rely on when forming any idea, philosophy or theory of what is observable.

I believe the physical creation to be within the spiritual realm, that is, the universe and everything in it, including time as we measure it, is contained within the Kingdom of God, the spiritual.
We measure time by the events, processes we see and experience within our existence, the universe. We measure the universe through our sense of existence, height, breadth and depth.
To attempt to impose these physical laws on something outside our existence, the spiritual, is not logical. In other words, one cannot measure or sense the spiritual by what exists.

Therefore there's something missing from the argument, acknowledgment that the spiritual does indeed exist and knowledge of the attributes of the spiritual of which we know next to nothing about. The argument lacks any knowledge of anything spiritual and is quite incomplete.

Your friend doesn't believe the spiritual exists in the first place evidenced by the fact all he presents is based solely on the physical.

We're missing the set of laws governing spiritual existence.
In short, all the facts aren't in.

 

[samuel]

I have answered this question, more times than one. Atheists believe, what they want to believe, and God allows it. This is based on Biblical evidence.

So do as Wycliffe did; when he preyed, that the King of England's eyes would be opened. No matter how long you contend with him, he will not believe you. So unless you enjoy the argument, which is also not fruitful for either party, don't. This is also Biblical.

 

[Rick W]

Could anyone build or even conceive of a radio without any knowledge of electricity?

 

[lovely]

I agree with Drew that the atheist has the same dilema he feels the believer has. As others have mentioned here, there seems to be more evidence for a Designer. I think the genetic code screams design personally.

The Lord bless you.

 

[JMM]

We're missing the set of laws governing spiritual existence.
In short, all the facts aren't in.

Well, I already know where this will go with my friend. He'll ask, how do we Christians KNOW that there IS a set of laws governing spiritual existence, if we admit that they are missing, and that no one has ever laid eyes on them?

I'll respond by asking, how do you atheists KNOW that there ISN'T a set of laws governing spiritual existence?

Yet another stalemate for both of us. :ohwell

 

[Rick W]

Yep.
Science can neither prove nor disprove the spiritual existence. And nobody can prove God exists to someone who doesn't want to believe.

 

[JMM]

No matter how long you contend with him, he will not believe you. So unless you enjoy the argument, which is also not fruitful for either party, don't.

I do enjoy the argument, Samuel. Perhaps you are right that it is not fruitful, in the sense that the arguments may not terminate in a proper meeting of the minds, or that one may not change the mind of the other. However, I feel that it IS fruitful in the sense that we both end up learning more about where the other is coming from, and what arguments the other side utilizes in defense of their views. It's an enlightening, educational experience for me, that I couldn't have if I spent ALL of my time ONLY associating with like-minded people.

I'm not an overly tribalistic kind of guy. I like to reach out to other tribes and try to understand them. My faith is not contingent on whether I win or lose an argument anyway, so I just have fun with it!

 

[tim-from-pa]

Your friend seems to think that reality, ie. creation induces concepts rather than the other way around. In fact, it's like an electrical transformer. Electrical energy (God) can create magnetic fields (creation) and magnetic fields in fact induce electricity (consciousness like God) to understand it.

His argument is a classical chicken and egg argument in disguise. To say that we need a universe to understand it is like saying that electricity cannot make magnetic fields because the fields in fact produced electricity first. Then where did either come from? But I suppose it is not enough to say to him that God can be a conceptual entity unto Himself and creation is merely another manifestation of that entity, and thus by the very nature induces back again concepts to understand it. As Einstein stated, the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that's its comprehensible. Comprehension by definition implies a concept. And a concept implies a being behind the concept.

I'm curious what atheists believe about any spiritual entity. Does such a thing prove to them there's a God or not? If not, then what is this thing in my house I call a poltergeist that moves things in front of my eyes? Good thing I have brown carpets as they'd be the first to mess and run away. That's why you'll never find an atheist in a haunted house.

 

[JMM]

Good argument, Tim. I'm just a little curious about that last part:

I'm curious what atheists believe about any spiritual entity. Does such a thing prove to them there's a God or not? If not, then what is this thing in my house I call a poltergeist that moves things in front of my eyes? Good thing I have brown carpets as they'd be the first to mess and run away.

What are you talking about here? An actual ghost, or what?

That's why you'll never find an atheist in a haunted house.

Are you implying that atheists, who don't believe in supernatural entities.....still believe in ghosts? I find that rather difficult to.....uh.....believe.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Good argument, Tim. I'm just a little curious about that last part:

I'm curious what atheists believe about any spiritual entity. Does such a thing prove to them there's a God or not? If not, then what is this thing in my house I call a poltergeist that moves things in front of my eyes? Good thing I have brown carpets as they'd be the first to mess and run away.

What are you talking about here? An actual ghost, or what?

Yes, an actual poltergeist.

That's why you'll never find an atheist in a haunted house.

Are you implying that atheists, who don't believe in supernatural entities.....still believe in ghosts? I find that rather difficult to.....uh.....believe.

The point being that if there are supernatural entities, then why not possibly God? I'm not sure what they believe here.

 

[JMM]

The point being that if there are supernatural entities, then why not possibly God?

Which is exactly why I have a hard time believing that any truly honest atheist could believe in ghosts.