Okay, I understand your position much better. Here's why it is wrong:
Your argument about arranging atoms to make consciousness
also applies to arranging atoms to make apples.
You can look at this arrangement of atoms all you want, but you still won't "see" the appleness unless you're some sort of lifeform that has mechanisms that recognize apples easily, like humans.
Presumably consciousness is a lot more complicated than apples, and worse yet is how it isn't a relatively durable object that humans can experience with all of their senses (indeed, none of the classical ones). So it intuitively feels like it's different, but that doesn't make it so.
I will see some aspects of the apple but not others. I will see its shape, because you can make shapes by arranging atoms in space, but I won't see its color. Then there are attributes like the fact that it grew on a tree, which I will be able to "see" if the atom-plot extends that far in space and time.
Before we go any further, I would like to know if this "counterargument by apple" is something you thought up by yourself, or if you got it from somewhere. I have an interest in knowing how these defensive memes spread.
ETA: I will try ...
From Being a Realist (even if you believe in God):
My mother, who doesn't call herself a theist (I think she's agnostic), doesn't even accept realism. She doesn't even agree with this:
That's little more than tautologies here. Yet it elicited an impression of being forced to believe. I know because she told me about the totalitarian dangers from such narrow thinking.
I'm happy to have finally found the root cause of our ongoing disagreement, but now, how can I deal with that? It looks pretty hopeless, but just in case, does someone have a suggestion, or should I just leave it at that? (My ego doesn't like it, but giving up is an option.)
Now I'm relieved to know that in near mode, she's a complete realist. This craziness only shows up in far mode.