There is undeniably something like consciousness in the cosmos. We have an inner mental life. We think, imagine, feel and experience everything within. Many animals also have a certain level of awareness. To claim that consciousness does not exist in the cosmos is therefore untenable. But can an argument for the existence of God be derived from this?
That there is such a thing as consciousness will not deny many people. Quite a few scientists, however, believe that their existence can easily be explained without calling upon God. Because why would consciousness not just be the same as matter? Why, in other words, can not a thought or feeling be simply the same as a group of firing neurons in our brains? Or, if this is a bridge too far, why should we not be able to assume that conscious thoughts and experiences are produced or produced by matter? Consciousness in that case is not the same as matter, but matter then forms the origin of consciousness in the cosmos. Even then, God is not necessary to understand the existence of consciousness.
The previous reasoning, however, raises problems. It is clear that at some point in the genesis of the cosmos the consciousness made its appearance. When and how that exactly happened is not relevant to this argument. Let us then call this “consciousness of consciousness” in the cosmos. Every human being and many animals on earth have this natural consciousness. This is not to be denied, as said.
The question now is what the origin of this natural consciousness is. That natural consciousness would be the same as matter is extremely unlikely. After all, our feelings and thoughts have no mass, no volume and no density. Conversely, conscious mental experiences have all kinds of properties that moving matter particles do not have, such as referring to something else in themselves and being charged with meaning.
Conscious experiences and moving matter can therefore not be equal to each other. Conscious inner experiences are metaphysically of a totally or radically different order than moving and colliding matter particles. It is therefore not reasonable to claim that our inner feelings and experiences, such as experiencing music or feeling sadness, are nothing more or less than groups of firing neurons.
It is also unreasonable to state that the natural consciousness is caused or produced in the cosmos by unconscious substance. The suggestion that matter or matter can produce consciousness goes deeply against our intuition. But not only that, in fact, we can not make any reasonable idea of how this production should take place. You can put billions of pieces of material in a ton and then shake billions of years, but never one day will suddenly produce a conscious mental life in that ton. Yet wanting to believe in a magical spontaneous creation of consciousness is nothing more than a form of wishful thinking.
Moreover, it follows from the suggestion that material processes produce conscious experiences that our mental life is merely a by-product of these autonomous processes. Our conscious decisions are then completely irrelevant to our actual actions. It does not matter what you decide yourself. Ultimately, it is only certain groups of firing neurons that determine what you will do. The idea that our conscious decisions at least partly determine our actions is a total illusion. However, this goes so strongly against our sense of self that we should only accept this if there is a very compelling reason for this. But that is exactly what is missing.
The origin of natural consciousness can not therefore be situated in unconscious matter. The origin of consciousness in the cosmos must therefore be something that is also conscious. So there is a conscious cause of the natural consciousness in the cosmos.
This conscious cause can not be natural. For if that were so, then all of the natural consciousness would have been caused by a natural consciousness. That is impossible, however. After all, nothing causes itself. To be able to cause yourself, you must already be there. But then you can not cause yourself anymore.
The origin of the natural consciousness must therefore be situated in a consciousness that itself is not natural. In short, the explanation for the existence of consciousness in the cosmos is reasonably situated in a conscious being that exists outside of the cosmos and at some point brought awareness into the cosmos. This supernatural conscious being is the ultimate explanation and origin of all natural consciousness in the cosmos and may rightly be called God.
The existence of consciousness in the cosmos gives rise to a reasonable argument for the existence of God. In any case, it provides an exceptionally strong indication.