Let's critically examine your argument.

oaroloye:
SHALOM!

Consciousness is not an argument for the Existence of God at all let alone "powerful."

This is stupid. The issue should be whether the argument is right or not not whether what I stated is an argument.

oaroloye:

This s a false argument.

This contradicts your earlier statement quoted above.

oaroloye:

First of all, there is no such thing as "Evolution."

Check 'evolution' in a dictionary and search it on Google and educate yourself.

oaroloye:

Secondly, if there were Evolution, of course it would have to apply to Consciousness, as organisms became more and more complex and sophisticated.

Explain how evolution will apply to a non-physical consciousness. If you think consciousness is physical state its physical properties.

oaroloye:

What do you even mean by "emergence?"

See here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

This raises the question of how you can possibly refute my argument when you don't know about terms it uses.

oaroloye:

What made you decide that evolving consciousness was not responsible for evolving physical structure?

I never stated that. Unless I misunderstand what you mean.

oaroloye:

I would be highly surprised to discover that you consulted a single Atheistic Source to come to that conclusion.

See above.

oaroloye:

If organisms evolved, were all of them "unconscious?"

I don't believe life evolved.

oaroloye:

Every living organism shows signs of consciousness.

No. It is a certified fact that species without brains can't possibly be conscious. This is also true of species with less developed brains.

oaroloye:

This is a crushing disappointment.

You have totally failed to show this.

oaroloye:

This is your "MOST POWERFUL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?"

Is this your best rebuttal?

oaroloye:

This is a disgrace!

No. Your post is a disgrace.

UyiIredia:
It's actually one of the arguments I posted earlier on this thread

https://www.nairaland.com/2353987/three-arguments-gods-existence

The argument from consciousness: Consciousness is not a physical thing. It's also called awareness and that's not physical. It's not a physical thing that you can observe and measure but is the means by which you observe and measure. It's critical to my argument that consciousness be understood as something immaterial, which it actually is, going by its definition. If you think about it all knowledge stems from consciousness because to truly know anything you must be aware of it. You cannot know what you are not aware of.

Now if atheists are right then there should be no consciousness at all. In a purely physical world consciousness would be the anathema, something strange. But there is consciousness and therefore the atheist is not correct. Consciousness being immaterial cannot be explained by physical means. It did not evolve since evolution applies to physical beings. It does not spontaenously emerge because emergence typically deals with how complex PHYSICAL systems arise from simpler precursors. Atheism being materialistic in nature has nothing to offer to explain mental awareness. But the theist believing in an eternal conscious God has a means to explain consciousness. And that my friends wraps up my argument.

Cc thehomer Seun cloudgoddess Blaqsmith dalaman ichommy HardMirror johnydon22 onetrack joseph1013 Kay17 plaetton Davien ValentineMary lepasharon reallest freecocoa K9blunt Amusaopeyemi

This is quite nonsensical.

Why is everything not consciousness? Including rocks and trees.

Why do you insist that Consciousness is not material? That is the first unfounded thing you say and then base your entire argument on. That makes your argument a baseless argument.