Computer Scientists Prove God Exists

[Rassah]

One of my earliest recollections as a child was when I was crying due to the fact I was being abused on a daily basis.  I asked God "Why?"  He said, "I am crying too."  That is all I needed to hear as a little four year old girl.

So, if one of your children starts to get abused on a daily basis, and comes to you crying, you will hold a phone that can call the police in one hand, a gun that can stop the abuser in the other, refuse to use them or do anything about it, and simply tell your child that you are crying too? Not much love there if you refuse to even raise a hand to help.

Obviously you would not refuse to help, and your moral urges would get you to do SOMETHING. And the reason is because you (hopefully), as a human being in this day and age, is better than the god of your bible. That's like one of the basic underlying principles of atheism: we figured out that god is AWEFUL, and that we as humans are way nicer, better, and more moral that the crap he spews.

[1715029331]

1715029331

[1715029331]

1715029331

[1715029331]

1715029331

[Rassah]

I believe it might have been Rassah who described a system he believes for the universe to have come from nothing, but it didn't add up to me.

Actually, as I stated, it adds up to zero. A nice round number that resulted from all out observations of the universe's matter and antimatter.

I mean if I showed you a coffee table and you said hey that's a nice table, where did you get that from? and I said, well it just appeared....You would say, don't be silly, someone must have made that...and if I said nope, just came from nothing...you would never believe me.

Luckily for us, when it comes to science, you don't have to believe anything

[BitChick]

One of my earliest recollections as a child was when I was crying due to the fact I was being abused on a daily basis.  I asked God "Why?"  He said, "I am crying too."  That is all I needed to hear as a little four year old girl.

So, if one of your children starts to get abused on a daily basis, and comes to you crying, you will hold a phone that can call the police in one hand, a gun that can stop the abuser in the other, refuse to use them or do anything about it, and simply tell your child that you are crying too? Not much love there if you refuse to even raise a hand to help.

Obviously you would not refuse to help, and your moral urges would get you to do SOMETHING. And the reason is because you (hopefully), as a human being in this day and age, is better than the god of your bible. That's like one of the basic underlying principles of atheism: we figured out that god is AWEFUL, and that we as humans are way nicer, better, and more moral that the crap he spews.

God did help Rassah. I did not go to my parents so calling the police was not an option.  Should I have?  Of course but kids do not always know what to do. As for justice,the guy got his due reward many years later by dying in a "freak" accident.  God is much more patient than we are though.  He wills for all to repent. What is the most miraculous it that my heart that was filled with hate was filled with compassion and grief for this person.  He abused me because he was abused too.  It really is a tragic thing all around.  But I hated him until God changed my heart.  That is something only God can do!  We start to see things through His eyes and everything changes.

I know you are totally ticked at God and I know your reasons are valid but perhaps your anger would be better directed at the one who is really behind it all.  We do have an "enemy" that wants to kill and destroy.  God will take care of him for that in due time.  The problem is that we are impatient and if God does not do what we want now, and how we think it should be done we get upset. 

[dank]

Vod, consider this.

When God created the first couple he intended for humans to populate the earth and enjoy all of the things which he had created on earth for them to enjoy, animals, foods, landscapes, beauty (the list goes on). At this point we can assume that there was no intention for sin or pain as the first couple were considered 'perfect', in health and in mind.

Your premise is wrong, so the rest of your argument is wrong as well.

When your god created the first couple, he KNEW at that point that Eve would eat the apple, sin would be invented, and he would have to start causing pain and murdering people.  HE KNEW THIS, for he is all powerful and can see the future, even through free will.

No one has been able to prove that your god doesn't get off on the pain he causes others.  He seems to do it a lot.

Pain is in your head.  Stop perceiving it as negative and it will not be painful.

A dying man at peace feels no pain.

[squall1066]

I have opened a thread to discuss Dank's history with me, Please discuss this matter here

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=325070.0

[the joint]

Mathematical proof of boundary of a boundary = 0, and the sameness-in-difference principle, lead us to understand that we are fundamentally inseparable from the rest of the Real Universe.

Can you explain this, using normal every-day words? Because this never made any sense, and thus never really did anything other than confuse people, and very likely make them ignore whatever you were saying out of fear of sounding stupid, or out of assumptions that you are as weird as dank with his random definitions.

I can try, but probably not.  The subject material is pretty dense and takes a lot into consideration.   The problem with "normal every-day words" is that they're often not as poignant, and you're looking for proof which requires exquisite poignancy (and my vocabulary isn't very large).  My statement that you quoted is pretty damn precise in that it's rather self-explanatory, but I'm guessing you want me to expound on the sameness-in-difference principle and the boundary proof.

The sameness-in-difference principle is easy to understand.   It's a well-established logical rule that states that any two relational entities 'x' and 'y' must occupy and share some relational medium.  For example, if I am real, and if you are real, then we share a relational medium of "realness" and are to that extent the same.  Even if you try to assert that two things are absolutely different from each other, than those two things still share a relationship of absolute difference, and they are bound by the syntax governing that relational medium.  Therefore, any differences that arise between any two entities must do so because they share a fundamental characteristic of identity with each other (because there is some common law or syntax governing both).

The proof for a boundary of a boundary = 0 extends this concept further, but it's harder to understand its implications, and so I'm not sure how clearly I can convey what I'm saying.  The boundary of a 3-dimensional cube, for example, is marked each of its 2-dimensional. square faces.  This boundary creates a distinction in information between the attributes contained within that boundary (e.g. the attributes that make a cube a cube) and those contained outside of that boundary (e.g. mathematical attributes that aren't cube-like but are complimentary in that they allow the cube to be distinguished as different from everything else).  So, the cube is a cube because it is not a not-cube (it needs something else outside of itself to be defined...like an axiom which is incomplete by itself alone).

When we look at the boundary of this boundary, which is measured by summing both the clockwise and counterclockwise values of the linear boundaries of each face (i.e. the 1-dimensional boundaries of the 2-dimensional faces of the 3-dimensional cube), the result of this sum is zero...each object has a self-cancelling type of symmetry.  Because the value of the boundary that separates the boundary of one entity from another is zero, the sameness-in-difference principle emerges into view.  In physics, this proof helps demonstrate that matter and space are intertwined, and there is a greater syntax governing both in tandem.

[interlagos]

But the idea that the universe is just composed of our imagination, and that if we can imagine it, it is real, is not based on any science or logic. The sheep herders were not a prerequisite to creation, they were a prerequisite to making up the mythology fairy tale about a being we call god. And I think what I just demonstrated is that yes, if you spin fantasies to fit your own beliefs and imaginations, you can make your own fantasies and imaginations be whatever the hell you want them to be. That's not a very big discovery. It also has no bearing on science or the real world.

Weren't those sheep herders also prerequisite to the fairy tale you call "science"?

Nope. That happened centuries later, when some people specifically rejected the ideas of those sheep hearders, and decided to actually do physical experiments in the physical world. Many were even punished or burned for doing this by the sheephearder followers.

Even though some people set themselves on a different path and decided to study the external world instead of looking into one's self, many of them came to the same conclusions:

"The Primacy Of Consciousness" (1:09:07) by Peter Russell (physicist)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d4ugppcRUE

Science is just one of the many hide-n-seek games in Creation. When you put your "player" in the Universe you created, you want it to not remember how it got there, so that it would begin its journey of exploration, be it science, art or even religion, it's up in the air.

So, if having a logical conclusion is a mere fantasy of my imagination, then it must be as real as what you call science or "real" world. There is no difference.

I doon't follow. No, a logical conclusion is not just whatever fantasy you wish to imagine.

Then my ontological argument still stands. Which is the following:

1) Let's define "God" as "Creator of the Universe(s)", it doesn't imply existence of God at this point, just a label.

2) Let's define "You" as an empirical evidence of your existence, which also allows you to have "Imagination"(basically an axiom, you agreed this Universe has "You" in it, that's good enough).

3) Let's assume that in "Imagination" everything is possible, some people in the beginning of this thread claimed just that in response to some religious discussions, so it shouldn't be a stretch (let it be an axiom too).

4) Now, every Universe "You" create in your "Imagination", where "You" emerge as a product of that Universe's laws, always leads to "God" (as per definition 1) equals "You" (or you would never emerge in any such Universe, because you are already the one imagining it).

5) There is empirical evidence that "You" emerged in this physical real Universe. As all such Universes (where "You" emerged) led to "God" equals "You" in your "Imagination", and that already encompassed all possibilities (according to 3), it necessarily leads to having empirical evidence of "God"'s existence (according to 2). Therefore "God" exists in reality.

So now you have two singularities, one where physical universe emerged out of Big Bang and the other where you as a consciousness emerged out of that physical universe, where there was no prior concept of you. What makes you choose the model with two singularities instead of just one, where you exist unconditionally and the rest is a product (sometimes very elaborate) of your imagination. Shouldn't Occam's razor apply here?

Because a singularity is a physics defined term, that means matter and energy in such a compressed state, that the gravity there overcomes light and time itself, etc. etc. etc.? I'm pretty sure I was never a black hole. Nor was I ever a spontaneous quantum explosion of matter and antimatter. All those things involving the Big Bang actually have some actual physical science behind them, so please don't conflate terms. Occam's razor would make my consciousness much more basic and simpler than some mystical thing that many people try to push here, and likewise would make the idea of the universe spontaneously popping into existence the way we have witnessed particles pop into existence in particle coliders WAY more probable than some omnippootent consciousness popping into existence to create the universe.

I used more generic term for singularity here (instead of a black hole, which indeed has mathematical model).
Singularity is where laws breakdown, it's that part when something comes out of nothing kinda thingy.

In that regard, even if you have a model for Big Bang as a collision of P-branes as per M-theory, the singularity would eventually hide in the explanation, where those branes came from.

So, again why have two singularities, where you can have only one. And if Occam's razor doesn't apply, then things get worse from the mere fact that those singularities are nested, meaning multiplying already infinitely small probabilities of any of them occurring independently.

There is no conclusive evidence, that brain creates consciousness, but there is some evidence (tabooed by "science" by the way), that brain receives consciousness.

We have pretty conclusive evidence that changing or damaging certain parts of the brain severely alters consciousness, that interfeering with brain chemistry alters consciousness, very good evidence on how brains are built and how they send signals, and practically no evidence that they receiive signals from elsewhere. Are you suggesting that brain damage due to physical trauma or disease actually interfeers with brain's "antenna" qualities, instead of actually damaging the consciousness that it works with? Your same Occam's raizor would say that the simplest explanation is that consciousness originates from the brain itself, as opposed to a vastly more complex idea that there is some great, unknown, untestable consciousness that our brain simply received (through what material or means, and why can't it be blocked)?

Yes, there is evidence that brain receives consciousness as demonstrated by scientific research (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=141298.msg1514618#msg1514618)

If you damage your player's receiver to the point, that it can no longer coherently function, the player would die and you (as a consciousness) would be out of this particular game. But as a living paradox, you can never settle to rest, you always were and you always will be.

Regarding the term omnipotent, I have explained in this thread, that every omnipotent unconstrained consciousness (or God), would eventually end up testing the limits of its power, because everything else would be created in an instant. The only thing that would have any lasting "experience" is constantly creating conditions, where you begin facing limits of your power, because that's how powerful you are. You can think of God as a living paradox, and that's where every omnipotent unconstrained God would eventually end up. That's where we all ended up, here on Earth, playing all the same game, testing the limits of our powers.

[pedrog]

God gave man free-will.  Sin enters the world because of humans choice.  Sin brings sickness, pain, suffering, evil and separation from God.  God, out of love for us, sends Jesus so He can walk with us, understand us and die for our sins.  Man still rejects Him, calls him horrible and unloving. In spite of this, God still cares about us and is willing that ALL come to repentance so He can save us.

Yes there are sick kids in the world.  There is unfair things that happen every day.  People do horrible things to each other. There will come a day when all things will be made right though and the sins of the world, and all the crap that Satan (who does not seem to be getting any credit for his part here) will pay for all the pain he has inflicted.  We have a choice though.  We can either be proud and reject God and say He is to blame, or we can come to Him and humbly ask for His help.  It is in the humble submission that He brings peace, joy, hope and wraps His arms around us and we are able to stand with the knowledge that all will be made right in the end.  I don't have to understand it all but I trust Him, like a child trusts a parent, that He will take care of me and to live is Christ but to die is gain.  I do not even have to fear sickness or death. So the sufferings on this earth seem fleeting and short lived.

So many wrongs in your words.

But are willing to say that to child dying with cancer?

"You will die because you are sinner!!!"

Where's the freewill in having cancer?

Why don't your god just kills Satan? He seems to do a lot of killing in the bible, why not one more? Is Satan his protégé?

And making promises for the after life is the ultimate scam!

I would tell a child dying with cancer that there is hope beyond this life and suffering.  That Jesus is crying too and understands him/her and what she is going through and that the child never has to feel alone.

Why doesn't God kill Satan?  Satan will get His due reward in the end.  Satan is a fallen angel.  For whatever reason God allows for Him to torment us and everyone on earth.   Why God does not just put Him in his place right now is one of those questions I don't understand myself.  I know that there was a war in heaven before earth was created.  Some of the angels chose to follow Satan.  That is why there are "fallen angels" and that they are still trying to "get back" at God by afflicting pain and suffering on us and trying to get us to not choose God.  I have often thought that God was lonely.  He created someone like Satan that was a more intelligent creative being then the other angels but then pride made the best of him.  Then God chose to create man.  He gave us a free-will so we could choose him or not.  If God forced us to choose Him, how would he know if we really loved Him or not?  He wants us to love Him out of our own free choice and not be forced to do so.  I suppose you could say it was a great big experiment that we are a part of.  We can accept that God chose for things to be this way or we can be angry with Him, or even say He does not exist.  The choice is ours.

How do you know for sure that the after-life is a scam?  Are you willing to bet your life on that?  Let's say you are wrong then you will approach Heaven and God will say He never knew you.  On the other hand, If you choose to accept God and His gift of eternal life you will be relieved that you made that choice if heaven is real.  If it is not real, then the outcome is the same is it not?  Seems like the logical thing would be to believe and accept.  It is a less risky move.

So, Jesus gives cancer to little children because they are sinners, but then he cries and it's all Satan's fault?

Somehow the all powerful god is not so powerful because there was a war and he lost?

We have freewill but we have to chose to believe otherwise Hell?

WTF are you talking about?

"Are you willing to bet your life on that?"

That's the thing, I'm not! You are the one making the gamble!

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

[hawkeye]

Your probably one of those folk who have never even held a bible. If not, then please describe how the bible substantiates it's self through prophecy and how archaeological and scientific evidence has backed these up. They exist and there are many. Then maybe you could tell us why you don't agree with them, in relation to this statement 'Frankly those pieces are far more easily experienced as truth than anything out of the bible.'.

So you are saying the bible is true because you have scientific evidence backing it up?

So on one hand, some scientific evidence counts, but on the other hand scientific evidence doesn't count.

What archaeological and scientific evidence backs up the bible's claims btw?

[NewLiberty]

Pain is in your head.  Stop perceiving it as negative and it will not be painful.

A dying man at peace feels no pain.

Makes sense. Its in my head.
Cut off my head and the pain stops pretty quickly.  

The Buddhists have it as: Life is suffering and Suffering comes from desire/perception.

So did those computer scientists prove the Christian god, or Osirus, or Zeus or Allah or Ahura Mazda, or Krisna or what?

[the joint]

Pain is in your head.  Stop perceiving it as negative and it will not be painful.

A dying man at peace feels no pain.

Makes sense. Its in my head.
Cut off my head and the pain stops pretty quickly.  

The Buddhists have it as: Life is suffering and Suffering comes from desire/perception.

So did those computer scientists prove the Christian god, or Osirus, or Zeus or Allah or Ahura Mazda, or Krisna or what?

Perception?  Really?  I never read that before. 

Also, "desire/perception" doesn't mean interchangeable, right, but rather both of them cause suffering?

[Rassah]

So, if one of your children starts to get abused on a daily basis and comes to you crying, you will hold a phone that can call the police in one hand, a gun that can stop the abuser in the other, refuse to use them or do anything about it, and simply tell your child that you are crying too? Not much love there if you refuse to even raise a hand to help.

God did help Rassah. I did not go to my parents so calling the police was not an option.  Should I have?  Of course but kids do not always know what to do. As for justice,the guy got his due reward many years later by dying in a "freak" accident.  God is much more patient than we are though.  He wills for all to repent. What is the most miraculous it that my heart that was filled with hate was filled with compassion and grief for this person.  He abused me because he was abused too.  It really is a tragic thing all around.  But I hated him until God changed my heart.  That is something only God can do!  We start to see things through His eyes and everything changes.

Forget about me being "ticked" at god. I'm not. I don't believe in him, and thus am just as ticked at god as you are ticked at Lady the Sasquatch. ("Who?" "Exactly.")

So, are you saying that if one of your kids was abused, the loving thing to do would be to tell them you still love them, and allow them to continue to be abused, hoping the abuser will just say sorry eventually, and only punishing the abuser years later if he doesn't?

[Rassah]

Mathematical proof of boundary of a boundary = 0, and the sameness-in-difference principle, lead us to understand that we are fundamentally inseparable from the rest of the Real Universe.

Can you explain this...

I can try, but probably not.  The subject material is pretty dense and takes a lot into consideration.

...

Sorry, I tried, but I still don't quite get it. It sounds like you are trying to apply abstract math to specific physics to show that what is actually completely physically separate in things like chemistry, physics, and quantum particles, is actually not separate because of an abstract mathematical concept. I'm not sure I'm ready to give up physical reality for abstract mathematics yet.

[Rassah]

FYI, sorry, buy I don't have the time, or the bandwidth to watch videos (I'm typically on my Android tablet)

I don't follow. No, a logical conclusion is not just whatever fantasy you wish to imagine.

Then my ontological argument still stands. Which is the following:

1) Let's define "God" as "Creator of the Universe(s)", it doesn't imply existence of God at this point, just a label.

2) Let's define "You" as an empirical evidence of your existence, which also allows you to have "Imagination"(basically an axiom, you agreed this Universe has "You" in it, that's good enough).

3) Let's assume that in "Imagination" everything is possible, some people in the beginning of this thread claimed just that in response to some religious discussions, so it shouldn't be a stretch (let it be an axiom too).

4) Now, every Universe "You" create in your "Imagination", where "You" emerge as a product of that Universe's laws, always leads to "God" (as per definition 1) equals "You" (or you would never emerge in any such Universe, because you are already the one imagining it).

5) There is empirical evidence that "You" emerged in this physical real Universe. As all such Universes (where "You" emerged) led to "God" equals "You" in your "Imagination", and that already encompassed all possibilities (according to 3), it necessarily leads to having empirical evidence of "God"'s existence (according to 2). Therefore "God" exists in reality.

What if I change #1 to "Let's define a pink unicorn as the creator of the universe." Can I follow the rest of your steps, and prove that pink unicorns exist? Can I use any fantasy creature or concept I want? And what if I refuse to define God as Creator of the Universe, and insist that the universe was created from a spontaneous quantum event, the type of which we have already witnessed? Doesn't that screw up the whole ontological argument?

I used more generic term for singularity here (instead of a black hole, which indeed has mathematical model).
Singularity is where laws breakdown, it's that part when something comes out of nothing kinda thingy.

Laws don't break down there, they just change. I think the reason the Big Bang was called a singularity was because it was. At that high gravity, everything might as well be a single point. But OK. Just as long as we are using the same language, or can at least understand the terms...

In that regard, even if you have a model for Big Bang as a collision of P-branes as per M-theory, the singularity would eventually hide in the explanation, where those branes came from.

I don't know enough string theory to know what that means, but I'm somewhat certain that's not the model for Big Bang that is being used. The one I subscribe to is the one proposed by Stephen Hawking back in late 80's/early 90's, which was confirmed by the Hadron Collider.

So, again why have two singularities, where you can have only one.

Where are you getting two singularities from? It was just one single quantum "pop."

Yes, there is evidence that brain receives consciousness as demonstrated by scientific research (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=141298.msg1514618#msg1514618)

Admittedly, I didn't really read the evidence (as I know it would be as much bunk as evidence of perpetual motion machines, made up by people who don't actually know how brains work), but the levitating man video was amusing. It's the oldest magic trick ever. Note the curtain behind him

[kokjo]

So did those computer scientists prove the Christian god, or Osirus, or Zeus or Allah or Ahura Mazda, or Krisna or what?

None of them. they only proofed that there exists a superior being. They did not even make the proof, that was Gödel who did that, they only checked it for correctness.

[NewLiberty]

Pain is in your head.  Stop perceiving it as negative and it will not be painful.

A dying man at peace feels no pain.

Makes sense. Its in my head.
Cut off my head and the pain stops pretty quickly.  

The Buddhists have it as: Life is suffering and Suffering comes from desire/perception.

So did those computer scientists prove the Christian god, or Osirus, or Zeus or Allah or Ahura Mazda, or Krisna or what?

Perception?  Really?  I never read that before.  

Also, "desire/perception" doesn't mean interchangeable, right, but rather both of them cause suffering?

It was desire/attachment, I must have been having a stroke or something while writing that.  Losing attachment to the head fixes that pain issue.

[edd]

So did those computer scientists prove the Christian god, or Osirus, or Zeus or Allah or Ahura Mazda, or Krisna or what?

None of them. they only proofed that there exists a superior being. They did not even make the proof, that was Gödel who did that, they only checked it for correctness.

Actually, they didn't even do that. All they did was "formalize" it in a way that could be read by a computer and then let a Macbook "prove" it.

[interlagos]

FYI, sorry, buy I don't have the time, or the bandwidth to watch videos (I'm typically on my Android tablet)

It's ok. I'm on an tablet myself, and typing quickly is sometimes troublesome.
The video contains (apart from the main train of thought) many quotes from great scientists of the past, where they expressed their fundamental understanding of reality.

I don't follow. No, a logical conclusion is not just whatever fantasy you wish to imagine.

Then my ontological argument still stands. Which is the following:

1) Let's define "God" as "Creator of the Universe(s)", it doesn't imply existence of God at this point, just a label.

2) Let's define "You" as an empirical evidence of your existence, which also allows you to have "Imagination"(basically an axiom, you agreed this Universe has "You" in it, that's good enough).

3) Let's assume that in "Imagination" everything is possible, some people in the beginning of this thread claimed just that in response to some religious discussions, so it shouldn't be a stretch (let it be an axiom too).

4) Now, every Universe "You" create in your "Imagination", where "You" emerge as a product of that Universe's laws, always leads to "God" (as per definition 1) equals "You" (or you would never emerge in any such Universe, because you are already the one imagining it).

5) There is empirical evidence that "You" emerged in this physical real Universe. As all such Universes (where "You" emerged) led to "God" equals "You" in your "Imagination", and that already encompassed all possibilities (according to 3), it necessarily leads to having empirical evidence of "God"'s existence (according to 2). Therefore "God" exists in reality.

What if I change #1 to "Let's define a pink unicorn as the creator of the universe." Can I follow the rest of your steps, and prove that pink unicorns exist? Can I use any fantasy creature or concept I want? And what if I refuse to define God as Creator of the Universe, and insist that the universe was created from a spontaneous quantum event, the type of which we have already witnessed? Doesn't that screw up the whole ontological argument?

Yes, you can call it anything you want, even a Flying Spaghetti Monster, it's just a label or shortcut for "Creator of the Universe(s)", so that I don't have to repeat that whole phrase in the rest of the argument.

But it is important to substitute the definition back when we conclude the argument. Which is:
Creator of the Universe(s) exists in reality.

If you refuse the idea of creator at all, then you will face contradiction the minute you create something in your imagination, like that "spontaneous quantum event" you mentioned. And by the way we didn't witness it, we reconstructed it in our imagination, based on some experimental data from the satelites, but there is no certainty, that this particular reconstruction is unique.

I used more generic term for singularity here (instead of a black hole, which indeed has mathematical model).
Singularity is where laws breakdown, it's that part when something comes out of nothing kinda thingy.

Laws don't break down there, they just change. I think the reason the Big Bang was called a singularity was because it was. At that high gravity, everything might as well be a single point. But OK. Just as long as we are using the same language, or can at least understand the terms...

In that regard, even if you have a model for Big Bang as a collision of P-branes as per M-theory, the singularity would eventually hide in the explanation, where those branes came from.

I don't know enough string theory to know what that means, but I'm somewhat certain that's not the model for Big Bang that is being used. The one I subscribe to is the one proposed by Stephen Hawking back in late 80's/early 90's, which was confirmed by the Hadron Collider.

So, again why have two singularities, where you can have only one.

Where are you getting two singularities from? It was just one single quantum "pop."

The one is the emergence of physical universe, the other is the emergence of you. You have agreed, that there was no pre-existing idea of you 1 year before your birth in this universe, so your emergence in it is a singularity.

The inconsistency in your reasoning, is that you require (for no obvious reasons) first singularity (the universe) to occur first in order for second singularity (you) to follow. Singularity already means, that you cannot coherently explain how it occurs, therefore requiring something else as a prerequisite seems unfounded.

There is another good argument to think of "you" as a primary (and maybe only) singularity. There are two possibilities - one is that physical universe exists and you perceive it, and the other is that physical universe is just an elaborate product of your imagination. Out of these two possibilities physical universe exists only in one case, while you exist in both. Another way of saying this, is that you cannot know about anything else (including physical universe) with higher degree of certainty, than you know about your own existence.
The moment, you say "I know something", validates your own existence immediately and unconditionally.

Yes, there is evidence that brain receives consciousness as demonstrated by scientific research (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=141298.msg1514618#msg1514618)

Admittedly, I didn't really read the evidence (as I know it would be as much bunk as evidence of perpetual motion machines, made up by people who don't actually know how brains work), but the levitating man video was amusing. It's the oldest magic trick ever. Note the curtain behind him

The evidence is about two lectures from Google Talks, where scientists presented experimental data that matched scientific criteria for "statistically significant" result. Which in normal language simply means, that data cannot be explained by chance.

If you want to ask why isn't this research mainstream, you should ask yourself who funds mainstream science and what is the agenda there, like with mainstream media and mainstream monetary system.

As to the perpetual motion machines, I have always wondered if simple hydrogen atom is a good model for that. Will the electron ever run out of juice, if the atom left alone indefinitely? What about permanent magnets, where spins of those "perpetual" electrons are aligned and therefore can be used to pull things?

[hawkeye]

If you refuse the idea of creator at all, then you will face contradiction the minute you create something in your imagination, like that "spontaneous quantum event" you mentioned. And by the way we didn't witness it, we reconstructed it in our imagination, based on some experimental data from the satelites, but there is no certainty, that this particular reconstruction is unique.
 

There are all kinds of crazy things happening on the quantum level.  Concepts that make sense to us on the macro level often have no meaning on the quantum level.  Even Feynman said no-one understands quantum physics.   So when it comes to the actual building blocks of reality, they don't make sense to us, they don't appeal to our common sense, they don't appeal to our instincts.

So saying the universe was created, however intuitive that may seem to us, may have no applicability at the quantum level.  

Our brains were evolved to understand how to avoid lions on the African plains.  If we can't see something, there was no reason for our brain to evolve to understand it.  Thus the things that we do understand is often because they are similar in some way to our everyday experiences.  eg. planets are just giant floating rocks.  Understanding that time is relative is a bit harder to visualise.  Quantum stuff, almost impossible.  We just know the equations work.

It could be that the universe has a perfectly rational reason for it's existence which is very difficult for us to process.  The "God created it" or "some being created it" thing?  Too simple, too human an idea and no explanation for how the God was created.  Which is why it was around before science.

[the joint]

Mathematical proof of boundary of a boundary = 0, and the sameness-in-difference principle, lead us to understand that we are fundamentally inseparable from the rest of the Real Universe.

Can you explain this...

I can try, but probably not.  The subject material is pretty dense and takes a lot into consideration.

...

Sorry, I tried, but I still don't quite get it. It sounds like you are trying to apply abstract math to specific physics to show that what is actually completely physically separate in things like chemistry, physics, and quantum particles, is actually not separate because of an abstract mathematical concept. I'm not sure I'm ready to give up physical reality for abstract mathematics yet.

You don't have to "give up" physical reality, but it does require that you recognize that physical reality obeys, and is subservient to, mathematical laws.  The idea is to build model that is internally consistent at a greater level of generality than all other models including the scientific model (which doesn't even permit formulating a model of reality based upon the very mathematical principles it depends upon).