Is there finally an argument for the existence of God?

Summarized version:
Our brain is the result of numerous simple physical processes that generate subjective experiences. It is reasonable to consider that other physical processes can also generate valid subjective experiences, including the entire universe itself.

Extended version:
The debate about God can be understood as a variation of the debate on the existence of consciousness. Believing in God implies, among other things, accepting the existence of a universal consciousness that is intelligent, conscious, and has a connection with us. While not all aspects of this belief can be empirically tested, some aspects are entirely plausible based on our current knowledge.

Consciousness encompasses various components, some of which can be easily explained by science, such as brain activity. However, there is a phenomenon known as “subjective experience” that science is unable to fully elucidate. This phenomenon is referred to as the “hard problem of consciousness,” as proposed by David Chalmers.

Science lacks a model, theory, property, or explanation that can predict or clarify the existence of subjective experience in humans or anything else in the universe. When we create computers, for example, we do not anticipate them possessing subjective experiences, not due to their complexity, but because there is nothing in physics that suggests this phenomenon would occur. While computers can process information and simulate brain activity, our current theories do not predict any associated experiential aspect.

The predicament lies in the fact that we are, in essence, intricate biological computers or robots, whichever term you prefer, and we possess subjective experiences that science cannot account for.

In their attempts to explain this, atheists must develop theories that either propose matter can generate subjective experiences (emergence) or that matter consists of subjective experiences (such as Russellian monism). The issue with these theories is that they imply subjective experiences can be generated by various physical processes, not exclusively within the human brain. Consequently, the notion that subjective experiences could exist beyond the human brain is entirely plausible. At this point, the idea of assuming that the universe, being a giant physical process, could produce a subjective experience like us.

Of course, it does not imply that it is necessarily intelligent; maybe it is more like a passive perception, or maybe it is intelligent due to processes we still have to discover.

So, the debate regarding the existence of a universal consciousness is entirely plausible, and it is up to each individual to believe in it or not.

Before start:

There exists significant confusion regarding the relationship between brain activity and subjective experience. Here is a text that aids in comprehending the hard problem of consciousness and distinguishing it from the easy problem.

Moreover, I believe it would be beneficial to watch this short video in order to comprehend the concept that science is incapable of measuring subjective experience.

By the time I got to this point, that was the third time you had implied not having a contrary explanation or evidence to your unevidenced god claim lent it some credence. This is of course a logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam,

You also failed to offer any objective evidence for a deity, or that one is even possible. Worse still, your unevidenced assumption that a deity is necessary to “explain” consciousness, has no explanatory powers whatsoever. What’s more all the objective evidence suggests consciousness is an emergent property of the human brain, and that it evolved.



By the time I got to this point, that was the third time you had implied not having a contrary explanation

Subjective experience is an observation, not a theory. It is, in fact, the foundation of any potential evidence we can gather about anything, as it relies on our ability to experience it. I’m uncertain whether there is a need to seek counterarguments against an observed fact.

You also failed to offer any objective evidence for a deity, or that one is even possible. Worse still, your unevidenced assumption that a deity is necessary to “explain” consciousness, has no explanatory powers whatsoever. What’s more all the objective evidence suggests consciousness is an emergent property of the human brain, and that it evolved.

Proving the existence of God in my argument is as easy as proving that subjective experience can exist outside of our brain. If our own subjective experience could be evidence of a superior consciousness, then it becomes a reinterpretation of existing evidence rather than the presentation of new evidence. Nonetheless, I aim to establish a logical framework that can reasonably support the existence of a higher consciousness. Specifically, I am suggesting that the concept of a GOD, as a subjective experience, is plausible based on our current understanding. I did not claim that God creates consciousness; rather, I stated that by explaining consciousness (particularly subjective experience), we may uncover a potential explanation for the existence of a superior consciousness.

What’s more all the objective evidence suggests consciousness is an emergent property of the human brain, and that it evolved.

Exactly, and your brain is a physical process, or, more accurately, the result of numerous simple physical processes. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider the proposition that other physical processes, or combinations thereof, can generate subjective experiences as valid.

1 Like

That doesn’t address your use of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy? Making your argument for a deity irrational by definition. Also can you use the quote function so we know who you’ve responded to, and can link to the original post (just highlight any text and a quote icon appears).

Atheism is the lack or absence of a belief, thus the assertion that atheists need do something in order to disbelieve the claim a deity exists is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. As I said, this fallacy in informal logic litters religious apologetics. FWIW I don’t believe it is possible to argue anything into existence without any objective evidnece, but I will try and keep an open mind.

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity? If not then I must withhold belief.

Do you mean that what we experience exists outside of our brains, rather being a construct of it? Only this is not always true, Spiderman exists in my brain, but does not exist in objective reality. The way we determine the difference is by demonstrating objective evidence. Also not all experiences are subjective, some are entirely subjective and others supported by sufficient objective evidence. I am inclined to believe the latter and disbelieve the former.

You will need to demonstrate that, not simply assert it. FYI personal experience ALONE is woefully unreliable, and I would not accept this alone as evidence generally speaking, least of all for the most extraordinary of claims like a deity existing or anything supernatural.

All I see are unevidenced assertions so far, and your argument already violated a basic principle of logic by using a known logical fallacy.

Ok, but you may as well be telling me unicorns didn’t create consciousness for all the meaning I can derive from that assertion. Our brains evolved, and all the objective evidence demonstrates that consciousness is an emergent property of our brains, and there is no objective evidence that our consciousness can survive the physical death of our brains.

Yes I read that claim, but I see no objective evidence to support it.

Again you seem to be reeling off unevidenced assertions, to what end?

Then adding an unevidenced deity to explain it’s existence is unnecessary, and doing so violates Occam’s razor.


Is Quim trying to claim that the existence of God can be implied by the existence of consciousness?

I don’t buy into this argument, but I can understand where it comes from.

When I ponder my own consciousness, I sometimes feel like my body is a kind of sock hand puppet that my consciousness wears like a glove.

I imagine that this is why people believe in the soul.

So, I can’t see my own back without a mirror, as I can feel it when I’m lying down. I think that asking people to abandon the ldea of a soul is hard for them if they perceive their own consciousness like I do.

Yet feeling something doesn’t make it true.

The earth seems flat, and it seems like we’re at the center of the Universe . . . yet neither of these things is true.

We may feel like we have a soul (and, therefore, God), but this doesn’t mean that it exists.


My argument focuses on the idea that you, as a material entity or process, possess a subjective experience. Belief in God essentially attributes this subjective experience to a higher level. It’s important to note that I’m not referring to brain activity, which is merely a physical process, but rather the experience associated with it.

If the physical processes within you can generate subjective experience, why couldn’t the universe itself?

This is essentially the core of my argument. The issue at hand is that no property, law, or substance in current physics predicts or explains the existence of subjective experience. Furthermore, science cannot measure or study subjective experience directly. We simply do not know if a stone possesses a rudimentary form of subjective experience or not.

Therefore, the most plausible explanation is that subjective experience could exist in everything, including the universe itself. Assuming this is more valid than assuming that only our specific physical processes give rise to it. After all, the chemical reactions and electrical currents occurring in our brains also occur throughout the entire universe.

There are additional reasons to support this argument, but this serves as a solid starting point.

1 Like

Again, how subjective our personal experience is, will depend on how much objective evidence we can demonstrate to support it.

Without any objective evidence to support it, thus I can no more believe this than claims people make to have been rescued from the sea by a mermaid.

It would need to be sentient, and there is no objective evidence that the universe is sentient. So unless you can demonstrate sufficient objective evidence that the universe is sentient, then that’s a reason to disbelieve the universe can experience anything.

I also don’t see how would the universe **hypothetically **perceiving anything is evidence for any deity?

Issue for whom, and why is this an issue?

It can test whether what we perceive is in accordance with reality.

Therefore? Oh I think not, you have simply leaped to an unevidenced assumption based on on an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

No it isn’t, we have objective for the latter, and none for your assumption here?

I don’t agree, since this is based on a logical fallacy, and is littered with unevidenced assumptions.

Now, are you ready to answer my question:

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, or that a deity is even possible?

So far you haven’t even accurately defined which deity you believe to be real.



Whenever I see a post containing declarations such as “Atheists believe …” or “Atheists must …” etc., I know I’m dealing with someone engaging in thoughtless presupposition.

Atheists aren’t “required” to do anything other than be suspicious of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions. Because that, at bottom, is what atheism IS - suspicion of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions.

The only people who are actually required to devise hypotheses are research scientists, because, wait for it, this is an essential part of being one.

Do learn to apply some rigour here.


The subjective experience is an objective phenomenon, not merely a subjective opinion. As an atheist, if you do not explore and provide explanations for evident facts that could potentially challenge your beliefs, then you are simply accepting them in an arbitrary manner. While this is perfectly acceptable, it may not be considered reasonable.

Please take a look at David Chalmers’ concept of philosophical zombies.

Atheism is not a belief, it is the lack or absence of belief. As @Calilasseia has correctly pointed out, an atheist need do nothing, since atheism is not a claim, nor need it involve any.

You know he’s an atheist right? Beyond that you take a look at it, and then explain carefully what relevance it has to your claims, we’re not doing your research for you.

Now I have asked multiple times:

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, or that a deity is even possible?

You seem to be dodging this question for some reason?

1 Like

If you examine the concept of a philosophical zombie (as proposed by David Chalmers), you will likely observe that there is no discernible physical distinction between an individual with subjective experience and a zombie lacking any subjective experience. Both would exhibit identical brain activity and reactions, but only one would possess subjective experience.
The issue at hand is not merely a misconception regarding brain activity.

Well, the problem runs deeper. There is no objective evidence to support the notion that you or anyone else is experiencing any subjective experience.

Currently, this problem poses a significant challenge for materialism. For instance, Bertrand Russell, a well-known atheist, put forward the concept of Russellian monism, stating explicitly that science does not inform us about the nature of matter, but rather its behavior. Hence, the problem is undoubtedly legitimate.

Heisenberg was a believer, but his belief does not imply that anyone studying quantum physics is also a believer. The same can be said of Chalmers.

It does not matter whether it is belief or disbelief; both should be grounded in an analysis of the facts, and subjective experience constitutes a factual aspect.

No it doesn’t, since you made the claim that the universe can experience things, and can’t evidence it, it is meaningless.

quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur

cam you demsontrate any objective evidence for any deity?

The fact you keep dodging this question presents a rather obvious inference, well two in fact.

  1. Which deity are you claiming is real?
    2, What objective evidence can you demonstrate that this deity exists outside of your imagination?

It is a fact that the material physical universe exists, and that natural phenomena exist, if you’re going to add unevidenced deities and inexplicable magic, without even attempting to provide any objective evidence then the problem is all yours, as I am not going to believe you. I need not go as far as to claim only the material exists, I can simply observe that it is all we have objective evidence for.

You are again trying to reverse the burden of proof, and again using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to do so, it remains an irrational argument.

1 Like

Coming late to this party, please forgive me if this has already been covered.

Of course the concept of god(s) can be (is) a subjective experience! One not everybody shares. The concept is absolutely plausible, otherwise there would not be folks identifying as theist.

I think this is ca ca.

Why? You say god(s) exist. I say I don’t believe you. Beyond that, I have no obligation to provide anything. If you want me to believe you, the ball is in your court, not mine.

Using that line of thinking, why couldn’t ice generate subjective thinking?

You have, on several occasions I’ve noticed, used the word “current”. What happens to your assertions once time has passed and “current” has grown to include new information?

Please provide the actual arithmetic you used to arrive at the quantitative announcement.


Physics doesn’t explain anything, You have a common but fundamental misunderstanding of what physics even is.


We’d hate to do that!

Btw :wave: and welcome @Quim

As an atheist, I withhold belief until sufficient demonstrable evidence is provided. Picking an unevidenced claim and then believing it is not my go to standard.

Explanations are all you’re after? Multiple universes; parallel universes; cyclical universe; simulation theory (we’re not in base reality); alien overlords (Annunaki); “god” died thus this universe (and we’ll eventually recollect back into “god”); we’re a butterfly :butterfly:‘s dream; we died in 2012; we were created 3 days ago …

I could go on and on. I love mind-candy.

One more :point_up: - you’re the only conscious being and we’re just all in your head :woman_shrugging:t2:


I don’t want you to believe that I’m saying subjective experience exists in humans, who are physical processes. However, it is entirely plausible to assume that it could also exist in other physical processes in the universe. In fact, this assumption is more logical than thinking that only humans have subjective experience for some magical reason.

In short, what I’m suggesting is that the default state of matter is subjective experience, not inert unconsciousness.

Not subjective thinking, but subjective experience; they are different. Anyway, yes, why not? Of course, it would likely be an incredibly rudimentary subjective experience, but perhaps there is some form of experience.

I use the term “current” because I aim to be specific, and our theories evolve over time. For instance, what was deemed natural in the 19th century is no longer considered natural today due to the advent of quantum physics and relativity. It is likely that what will be regarded as natural a hundred years from now will differ from our current understanding. Therefore, as of now, physics provides no explanation for subjective experience. No theory predicts its emergence, yet it undeniably exists. In my opinion, this poses a significant challenge that cannot be ignored.

Being made of matter, my experience is that of subjective experience, not mere nothingness. Furthermore, I suspect that subjective experience is constantly present, with the issue being that our memory ceases to function during sleep. This line of thought leads me to consider the possibility that the default state of matter is experience rather than unconsciousness.

In fact, assuming that the default state is nothingness is equally valid to assuming subjective experience, but it fails to align with our own experiences.

In any case, there are other intricate problems that reinforce this notion.

My point is not necessarily to persuade you to believe something specific. Instead, I am proposing that your assumption regarding the default state of matter as no-experience appears less plausible to me compared to my assumption that the default state of matter is subjective experience. This is because we have direct evidence that matter, including ourselves, can experience things.

All theories and models aiming to elucidate how subjective experience emerges in the brain are equally applicable to the assumption that similar subjective experiences could emerge elsewhere in the universe, including within the universe itself.

This did not provide what I requested.


The words you keep forgetting to add to your posts are “I think…”or “it seems to me…” or “I find it…”

You assumption is more logical to you. That may be a fact in your view but it is not universally a fact.

1 Like