Computer Scientists Prove God Exists

[Rassah]

So, there are two options here, either we have per-existent idea of "you" before your birth or we have a singularity. I cannot see any way around it, no matter how certain belief system is called.

If the substance of "you" is a particular configuration of atoms waiting to arrange themselves in a certain way, then that's already a pre-existent idea of "you". Can we agree on that?

I'm not sure. Saying they are waiting to kind of anthropomorphasizes this whole thing. I don't think atoms can wait, or feel anything, or have any ideas or thought processes, let alone of a future me. Can we just say that a proper set of circumstances just happened to align to bring those specific atoms together to form me? And would my being formed what you are calling the "singularity?" (Which still sounds like an extremely improper and over-sensationalized term for "just happened by chance").

In this regard, making step forward would be building a very realistic computer simulation, which would block person's current memory and perception of physical reality for the duration of the game session. Something like decent VR helmet with good response time for blocking physical reality and injection of some substance to temporarily block current memory would do the job. All this is real physical stuff from off-the-shelf components, so no imaginary fantasies here.

Then ask that person the same questions while in the game session and see how ridiculous the answers would sound. Something like: "how did you get here?" - "oh, I don't know, maybe I am just an arrangement of some bits in this place, or some quantum flop of energy...". It is very easy to see, that simulation itself didn't create that person (the actual physical player), but only altered the perception of reality for a while.

Let's pretend that the simulation is extremely good, even allowing this player to test his environment, but not allowing to give him any hints that he is in a simulation. Then, based on the tests this player has performed, he learned that the answer to the questions is most probably X. The question that arises then  is: Does it matter if the real answer to the question is actually Y, if everything the player believes he will experience, and the only thing he believes will ever have an influence on him, is X? Does Y even have any significance if there is no way for the player to test for Y? And if X is the only thing the player can test for and experience, can the "realty" for the player be Y, Z, A, B, C, or an infinite other possibilities, all having no bearing on his existence in the situation? (That alphabet being Christ, Zeus, Ra, Thor, or a slew of other "realities" we have come up with that actually have no bearing or significance on the world we experience).

[Rassah]

The experience of creating something in imagination is more immediate, than your interpretation of it as simply rearranging the electrons in the brain. So why do you prefer some very complex interpretation over the immediate experience?

I don't follow. Imagining something takes eons when measured in picoseconds (it's relative), and our brains and imagination isn't actually all that fast. We can't even process visual information faster than at a few images a second, and it takes a while to reconstruct something like a house in our imagination (at least compared to how fast computers can do it now). So, I'm not sure what you mean by more immediate, in leu of it being slowed by the electrical and chemical limits of our wetware (brains).

You can also create something in physical reality after you imagine it, don't you have a concept of a house with all those drawings before you go and build it?

Yes, but that concept isn't a creation, is a concept. Like "cat" is a word that identifies a furry, sharp concept, not an actual creation of a feline. The only thing "cat" creates is some pixels on your screen, just as the only thing imagining a house creates is just some electrical "pixels" in your brain.

But my being formed through chemical processes isn't a singularity. There was no pre-existing idea of my car 5 years ago, either, but it was put together from raw materials, and now here it is. I don't call that a singularity, I cann it a normal physical event.

But there is a clear distinction (for you) between chemical processes before your birth and after. So is there a particular chemical process that makes you who you are? Isn't that process a pre-existing idea of you then?

I don't know if it's relevant, but for me, no. There was a period between my birth and the time my long-term memory developed (about 1 to 2 years of age) during which I don't remember any concept of "me." For others, yes, there is a clear distinction between the total lack of chemical processes before my conception, and a bundle of chemical processes that can be defined as me after conception. I have no idea what you mean by the "pre-existing idea" though. I don't know who would be holding and thinking that idea. It wasn't me or my parents.

The car example is irrelevant to this discussion, as anything else you call yours, simply because for something to be yours you need to be you to begin with. Your car is not you, so it is not so interesting how it came to be. The funny thing is that according to this train of thought your brain also is not you. You need to go deeper, or should I say "outside"

Sorry, I didn't mean to focus on the possessive "my" car. I was just using my car as an example. It's a car, and it's its own car. It is self containing as a single entity, that came to be after being assembled from various parts, but was not imagined, or existed as any sort of idea, until it was assembled. Just as I was and is before and after I was "assembled." As for the brain not you idea, that may prove rather difficult for those who believe as you do when we get to the point of being able to upload our consciousness into machines. Modern psychology says that "we" are not only our physical brains, but the rest of our bodies as well, limbs and all, and uploading ourselves into a disembodied system, or even a system with a radically different body (different proportions, senses, etc) could be such a radical change to our psyche that we would rapidly become seemingly totally different people/personalities, or even go mad. Those who believe their brains are not them may end up boldly and carelessly going straight into total insanity.

[dank]

So, there are two options here, either we have per-existent idea of "you" before your birth or we have a singularity. I cannot see any way around it, no matter how certain belief system is called.

If the substance of "you" is a particular configuration of atoms waiting to arrange themselves in a certain way, then that's already a pre-existent idea of "you". Can we agree on that?

I'm not sure. Saying they are waiting to kind of anthropomorphasizes this whole thing. I don't think atoms can wait, or feel anything, or have any ideas or thought processes, let alone of a future me. Can we just say that a proper set of circumstances just happened to align to bring those specific atoms together to form me? And would my being formed what you are calling the "singularity?" (Which still sounds like an extremely improper and over-sensationalized term for "just happened by chance").

In this regard, making step forward would be building a very realistic computer simulation, which would block person's current memory and perception of physical reality for the duration of the game session. Something like decent VR helmet with good response time for blocking physical reality and injection of some substance to temporarily block current memory would do the job. All this is real physical stuff from off-the-shelf components, so no imaginary fantasies here.

Then ask that person the same questions while in the game session and see how ridiculous the answers would sound. Something like: "how did you get here?" - "oh, I don't know, maybe I am just an arrangement of some bits in this place, or some quantum flop of energy...". It is very easy to see, that simulation itself didn't create that person (the actual physical player), but only altered the perception of reality for a while.

Let's pretend that the simulation is extremely good, even allowing this player to test his environment, but not allowing to give him any hints that he is in a simulation. Then, based on the tests this player has performed, he learned that the answer to the questions is most probably X. The question that arises then  is: Does it matter if the real answer to the question is actually Y, if everything the player believes he will experience, and the only thing he believes will ever have an influence on him is X? Does Y even have any significance is there is no way for the player to test for Y? And if X is the only thing the player can test for and experience, can the "realty" for the player be Y, Z, A, B, C, or an infinite other possibilities, all having no bearing on his existence in the situation? (That alphabet being Christ, Zeus, Ra, Thor, or a slew of other "realities" we have come up with that actually have no bearing or significance on the world we experience).

So you admit, there's a variable Y.  It seems you have solved the equation.  They clearly have a bearing over existence, for you are speaking of it.

[Rassah]

Here you assume, that the quantum level is more fundamental than our perception of it.
However, the quantum level have clearly demonstrated that it is not independent from our observation of it and therefore is not a separate fundamental reality onto itself.

The atoms that make up our brains are equal citizens on that quantum level with other particles. So how can our brain give rise to our consciousness, if its constituents are dependent on how we look at it?

In other words, the brain is only a brain when we look at it.

I think you may be misunderstanding what quantum means. It doesn't mean that quantum level exists when we observe it, and doesn't exist when we don't. It always exists. The principle of it being dependent on our observation only says that HOW we end up observing it determines how it may present itself. Simplest example is lightmbeing wave v.s particle. On quantum level, if we observe light and test it to see if it is a wave, we will observe it as a wave, and if we try to observe it as a particle, we will see it as a particle. However, that light will continue to exist regardless of whether we observe it. On a macro scale, this is like observing the temperature of a glass of water with a big thermometer. If we insert the thermometer into the glass to get a temperature reading, we won't be getting the actual temperature, but the temperature affected by our observation, which is the combination of the temperature of the water and the added temperature of the thermometer. The final temperature is not independent of our observation, but there would still be a temperature even if we didn't observe it.
Didn't they cover this stuff in your school? (It was in one of my high school classes)

So, with regards to our consciousness and brains, this doesn't even really apply, since they are both contained in the same system. You are not the thermometer (consciousness) observing the water (brain), you are the water itself. Or you could say you are a glass of water with a thermometer already in it.

[Rassah]

Let's pretend that the simulation is extremely good, even allowing this player to test his environment, but not allowing to give him any hints that he is in a simulation. Then, based on the tests this player has performed, he learned that the answer to the questions is most probably X. The question that arises then  is: Does it matter if the real answer to the question is actually Y, if everything the player believes he will experience, and the only thing he believes will ever have an influence on him is X? Does Y even have any significance is there is no way for the player to test for Y? And if X is the only thing the player can test for and experience, can the "realty" for the player be Y, Z, A, B, C, or an infinite other possibilities, all having no bearing on his existence in the situation? (That alphabet being Christ, Zeus, Ra, Thor, or a slew of other "realities" we have come up with that actually have no bearing or significance on the world we experience).

So you admit, there's a variable Y.  It seems you have solved the equation.  They clearly have a bearing over existence, for you are speaking of it.

I see something even this basic went over your head. No, dank, I merely point out that the variable Y is irrelevant. There could be Y, or Z, or anything, but if it is not relevant to our world, it is not relevant period. Also, claiming Y means you have to claim an infinite other things, too, since Y is no more important than everything else (but is infinitely LESS important than the actually-experienced X).
The only bearing on existence I am giving Y by speaking about it is to point out that it should not be taken into consideration at all, and should be ignored, becaise it has no bearing over existence. Yes, ironically, it is important to tell people that they should not waste time, energy, and resources (and kill each other in the process) on things that have absolutely no bearing or influence on their life.

[dank]

Here you assume, that the quantum level is more fundamental than our perception of it.
However, the quantum level have clearly demonstrated that it is not independent from our observation of it and therefore is not a separate fundamental reality onto itself.

The atoms that make up our brains are equal citizens on that quantum level with other particles. So how can our brain give rise to our consciousness, if its constituents are dependent on how we look at it?

In other words, the brain is only a brain when we look at it.

I think you may be misunderstanding what quantum means. It doesn't mean that quantum level exists when we observe it, and doesn't exist when we don't. It always exists. The principle of it being dependent on our observation only says that HOW we end up observing it determines how it may present itself. Simplest example is lightmbeing wave v.s particle. On quantum level, if we observe light and test it to see if it is a wave, we will observe it as a wave, and if we try to observe it as a particle, we will see it as a particle. However, that light will continue to exist regardless of whether we observe it. On a macro scale, this is like observing the temperature of a glass of water with a big thermometer. If we insert the thermometer into the glass to get a temperature reading, we won't be getting the actual temperature, but the temperature affected by our observation, which is the combination of the temperature of the water and the added temperature of the thermometer. The final temperature is not independent of our observation, but there would still be a temperature even if we didn't observe it.
Didn't they cover this stuff in your school? (It was in one of my high school classes)

So, with regards to our consciousness and brains, this doesn't even really apply, since they are both contained in the same system. You are not the thermometer (consciousness) observing the water (brain), you are the water itself. Or you could say you are a glass of water with a thermometer already in it.

We are the thermometer looking through the glass of water.

Let's pretend that the simulation is extremely good, even allowing this player to test his environment, but not allowing to give him any hints that he is in a simulation. Then, based on the tests this player has performed, he learned that the answer to the questions is most probably X. The question that arises then  is: Does it matter if the real answer to the question is actually Y, if everything the player believes he will experience, and the only thing he believes will ever have an influence on him is X? Does Y even have any significance is there is no way for the player to test for Y? And if X is the only thing the player can test for and experience, can the "realty" for the player be Y, Z, A, B, C, or an infinite other possibilities, all having no bearing on his existence in the situation? (That alphabet being Christ, Zeus, Ra, Thor, or a slew of other "realities" we have come up with that actually have no bearing or significance on the world we experience).

So you admit, there's a variable Y.  It seems you have solved the equation.  They clearly have a bearing over existence, for you are speaking of it.

I see something even this basic went over your head. No, dank, I merely point out that the variable Y is irrelevant. There could be Y, or Z, or anything, but if it is not relevant to our world, it is not relevant period. Also, claiming Y means you have to claim an infinite other things, too, since Y is no more important than everything else (but is infinitely LESS important than the actually-experienced X).
The only bearing on existence I am giving Y by speaking about it is to point out that it should not be taken into consideration at all, and should be ignored, becaise it has no bearing over existence. Yes, ironically, it is important to tell people that they should not waste time, energy, and resources (and kill each other in the process) on things that have absolutely no bearing or influence on their life.

So Y = god = consciousness = love

Consciousness and love are not relevant to your world?  They are to others, so they exist.

And yes, there are infinite things to fill that variable.

[Rassah]

We are the thermometer looking through the glass of water.

Um.. Yes, if by "thermometer" you mean us, and "water" you mean the universe. Though some of us don't understand what effect we have as we look, and either believe we have no effect, or ascribe WAY WAY WAY more effect than we actually have. And no if by "thermometer" you mean consciousness and by "water" you mean our brain. Yes, conscious thought physically alters the brain, but consciousness doesn't percieve the brain (which would be the quantum observation thing), but rather exists from it.

So Y = god = consciousness = love

Also, Y = a merry fairy princes = hunger = foot
Also, Y = jibba-jabba = fool = pitty the
Y is anything, and anything is undefined, and thus meaningless.

Consciousness and love are not relevant to your world?  They are to others, so they exist.

Consciousness and love from Y, meaning consciousness and love from someone I don't know and don't have a hope of ever knowing are completely irrelevant, yes. They should be completely irrelevant to everyone else, too. Is the dust bunny under my bed being "conscious" and loving you with all its filth relevant to you?
The only consciousness and love that matter is that which comes from X, since that is the only consciousness and love that we can actually feel and experience.

Also, you are really overusing the word love. If you just throw it around, you are pretty much making it nothing but a cheap statement. Love is a feeling expressed thorough action. I don't care if you love anyone, or if anyone loves anyone else, as their feelings are worth exactly shit if they do nothing to actually show it. You have a tendency to throw around big "important" terms like "god" and "love" as if you hope they will have some meaning in-and-of themselves. Sorry to break it to you, but they don't. Without action, work, evidence, or any effect on the people you are throwing them at, all they are are just funny sounds created by wind that you blow while you contort your face into funny shapes.

[Vigil]

Ultimately this proof rests on whether human beings can truly understand what God is and that its concept cannot be derived simply as an extension or ultimate regression of something which exists in fact. In which case, God doesn't really exist in your mind, only some superficial idea you are generically referring to as God. But obviously, humans can't completely conceive of God, or maybe they can...

[NewLiberty]

You are correct, we don't 'create' anything because everything always existed and has happened before us.  We are just channeling, changing and controlling, thereby, basically creating with our minds.

So, are we "creating" or are we just "channeling?" You can't have both? And if there is exactly zero factual corroborated and reproducible evidence for any of this, why is it relevant? I guess for you, you hope to be the very first person to actually have factual, corroborated, and reproducible evidence? I wonder what are the chances of that, since you'd be the first human (maybe second) to do this in 250,000 years.

It's very simple to understand when you understand what infinity means.  If the universe is infinite, everything has already happened infinitely and everything you can think of exists everywhere.

We call it creating, though it's not really creating anything because you cannot create more than infinity.  But it's a good word.  We are conscious creators.

Like in Zelazny's Amber Chronicles?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Amber
Perhaps this one has walked the Logrus

[NewLiberty]

Ultimately this proof rests on whether human beings can truly understand what God is and that its concept cannot be derived simply as an extension or ultimate regression of something which exists in fact. In which case, God doesn't really exist in your mind, only some superficial idea you are generically referring to as God. But obviously, humans can't completely conceive of God, or maybe they can...

Ineffable

[interlagos]

So, there are two options here, either we have per-existent idea of "you" before your birth or we have a singularity. I cannot see any way around it, no matter how certain belief system is called.

If the substance of "you" is a particular configuration of atoms waiting to arrange themselves in a certain way, then that's already a pre-existent idea of "you". Can we agree on that?

I'm not sure. Saying they are waiting to kind of anthropomorphasizes this whole thing. I don't think atoms can wait, or feel anything, or have any ideas or thought processes, let alone of a future me. Can we just say that a proper set of circumstances just happened to align to bring those specific atoms together to form me? And would my being formed what you are calling the "singularity?" (Which still sounds like an extremely improper and over-sensationalized term for "just happened by chance").

In this regard, making step forward would be building a very realistic computer simulation, which would block person's current memory and perception of physical reality for the duration of the game session. Something like decent VR helmet with good response time for blocking physical reality and injection of some substance to temporarily block current memory would do the job. All this is real physical stuff from off-the-shelf components, so no imaginary fantasies here.

Then ask that person the same questions while in the game session and see how ridiculous the answers would sound. Something like: "how did you get here?" - "oh, I don't know, maybe I am just an arrangement of some bits in this place, or some quantum flop of energy...". It is very easy to see, that simulation itself didn't create that person (the actual physical player), but only altered the perception of reality for a while.

Let's pretend that the simulation is extremely good, even allowing this player to test his environment, but not allowing to give him any hints that he is in a simulation. Then, based on the tests this player has performed, he learned that the answer to the questions is most probably X. The question that arises then  is: Does it matter if the real answer to the question is actually Y, if everything the player believes he will experience, and the only thing he believes will ever have an influence on him, is X? Does Y even have any significance if there is no way for the player to test for Y? And if X is the only thing the player can test for and experience, can the "realty" for the player be Y, Z, A, B, C, or an infinite other possibilities, all having no bearing on his existence in the situation? (That alphabet being Christ, Zeus, Ra, Thor, or a slew of other "realities" we have come up with that actually have no bearing or significance on the world we experience).

By reading your responses, I just realized that there is another answer to the question "Who am I?".
And that answer is "I just don't wanna know".

I do appreciate the persistence with which you defend your position and acknowledge it just as valid as any other. Arguing any further might not be of much value, as the meaning we put behind words starts to diverge rapidly at this stage. I wonder how people can agree on anything at all, if everyone understands something different for the words they use. Was there meaning or the word first? Or are they just two inseparable parts of the same one thing, a living paradox, where none can get the ultimate edge of another?

I agree that you are inseparable from your experience, including the experience of living in a Universe, be it a simulation, a "real" thing or just a dream. In that sense, "It is You and You are It" and "We are all One and the Same".

As a compensation for the time and effort spent on this discussion by many, I would like to suggest watching two wonderful movies, that the electrons in our brains have spontaneously created "by chance"

"The Game" (1997) with Michael Douglas
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119174/

"The Truman Show" (1998) with Jim Carrey
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120382/

Have fun!

[Rassah]

By reading your responses, I just realized that there is another answer to the question "Who am I?".
And that answer is "I just don't wanna know".

I thought about this, and, you may be right in some sense, but I prefer to think of it as "I don't want to jump to any conclusions until I'm sure."

Thanks for the discussion though. Made me really thing about my stance and place in the universe (plus forced me to do some research)

[superresistant]

Time is an illusion, there is no such thing as linear time. Time a fractioned into quantum of time.

Nothing prove that quantum of time are put in order. It is our consciousness that create the order and the illusion of linear time.

Your consciousness exist in any quantum of time.

Nothing prove that consciousness is dependant on the material existence of the brain.

Therefore your consciousness exist before and after your material existence.

[Rassah]

Nothing prove that consciousness is dependant on the material existence of the brain.

Therefore your consciousness exist before and after your material existence.

What about the very simple test of: brain on = you're conscious, brain off = you're uncoonscious, brain on = you're conscious again. Such as what we do when we unduce coma or people go into coma due to brain trauma, or when people go braindead for a while and then come back from it? If I was to see a light being on, flipped a switch and saw it go off, then flipped the switch and see it come on again, the conclusion I would make is that the switch controls the light, not that the light exists outside of the realm of the switch, and simply goes away somewhere else when I flip the switch. As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you have any of that?

[kokjo]

Nothing prove that consciousness is dependant on the material existence of the brain.

Therefore your consciousness exist before and after your material existence.

What about the very simple test of: brain on = you're conscious, brain off = you're uncoonscious, brain on = you're conscious again. Such as what we do when we unduce coma or people go into coma due to brain trauma, or when people go braindead for a while and then come back from it? If I was to see a light being on, flipped a switch and saw it go off, then flipped the switch and see it come on again, the conclusion I would make is that the switch controls the light, not that the light exists outside of the realm of the switch, and simply goes away somewhere else when I flip the switch. As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you have any of that?

that argument is only applicable for human(or otherwise biological living thing) consciousness, not for consciousness in general.

[superresistant]

Nothing prove that consciousness is dependant on the material existence of the brain.
Therefore your consciousness exist before and after your material existence.

What about the very simple test of: brain on = you're conscious, brain off = you're uncoonscious, brain on = you're conscious again. Such as what we do when we unduce coma or people go into coma due to brain trauma, or when people go braindead for a while and then come back from it? If I was to see a light being on, flipped a switch and saw it go off, then flipped the switch and see it come on again, the conclusion I would make is that the switch controls the light, not that the light exists outside of the realm of the switch, and simply goes away somewhere else when I flip the switch. As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you have any of that?

You are confusing consciousness and perception. You are still conscious while other people state that you are unconscious.

Your consciousness can exist without interacting with others in the material world.

Altering consciousness is altering the world.

[superresistant]

Every consciousness act as an observer of the universe.

There is no universe without an observer.

The sum of all observers make the world what it is.

If most of observers believe in the existence of god, it should make god exist.

Wait, does this mean that when most observers believed the earth was flat, we were on a disk, and it was turtles all the way down?

Read again, you cannot create or do what you believe is impossible.

[dank]

We are the thermometer looking through the glass of water.

Um.. Yes, if by "thermometer" you mean us, and "water" you mean the universe. Though some of us don't understand what effect we have as we look, and either believe we have no effect, or ascribe WAY WAY WAY more effect than we actually have. And no if by "thermometer" you mean consciousness and by "water" you mean our brain. Yes, conscious thought physically alters the brain, but consciousness doesn't percieve the brain (which would be the quantum observation thing), but rather exists from it.

So Y = god = consciousness = love

Also, Y = a merry fairy princes = hunger = foot
Also, Y = jibba-jabba = fool = pitty the
Y is anything, and anything is undefined, and thus meaningless.

Consciousness and love are not relevant to your world?  They are to others, so they exist.

Consciousness and love from Y, meaning consciousness and love from someone I don't know and don't have a hope of ever knowing are completely irrelevant, yes. They should be completely irrelevant to everyone else, too. Is the dust bunny under my bed being "conscious" and loving you with all its filth relevant to you?
The only consciousness and love that matter is that which comes from X, since that is the only consciousness and love that we can actually feel and experience.

Also, you are really overusing the word love. If you just throw it around, you are pretty much making it nothing but a cheap statement. Love is a feeling expressed thorough action. I don't care if you love anyone, or if anyone loves anyone else, as their feelings are worth exactly shit if they do nothing to actually show it. You have a tendency to throw around big "important" terms like "god" and "love" as if you hope they will have some meaning in-and-of themselves. Sorry to break it to you, but they don't. Without action, work, evidence, or any effect on the people you are throwing them at, all they are are just funny sounds created by wind that you blow while you contort your face into funny shapes.

If we were simply the brain we would have no need for consciousness as we would simply be robots programmed to react to things.  This is not the case, we are live beings, we are consciousness, we have free will, we're not the brain.  If you have ever had an outer body experience, you would realize this.

Tell me, how does the brain create a consciousness?  Because from my understanding it can neither be created or destroyed.

[Rassah]

You are confusing consciousness and perception. You are still conscious while other people state that you are unconscious.

Your consciousness can exist without interacting with others in the material world.

Altering consciousness is altering the world.

So, are you saying that you can have consciousness, without actually being conscious? (defined as awake and aware of your surroundings or your existence) I doon't follow, as I understand consciousness as being conscious. So when you are in a comma, you are unconscious, and your consciousness is off. Or do you simply mean that the thing that contains your consciousness still exists, thus your coonsciousness still exists, but it's just not doing any consciousing?

Every consciousness act as an observer of the universe.

There is no universe without an observer.

The sum of all observers make the world what it is.

If most of observers believe in the existence of god, it should make god exist.

Wait, does this mean that when most observers believed the earth was flat, we were on a disk, and it was turtles all the way down?

Read again, you cannot create or do what you believe is impossible.

Most observers used to believe the world being flat and being on top of elephants and turtles was possible. Now, many believe that the idea of god is impossible. If you claim that what observers believe makes the world what it is, that suggests to me that if most observers believe the world is flat, then the world is flat, and if they believe that god can't exist, then god can't exist. What am I missing?

[Rassah]

If we were simply the brain we would have no need for consciousness as we would simply be robots programmed to react to things.

Isn't this what you are doing, though? Things happen, and you react to them, based on your best assessment of the situation. And if you don't have any assessment of a situation, you just pick a random choice, hope it's good, and go with it. At least that's how I do it. How do you do it?

This is not the case, we are live beings, we are consciousness, we have free will, we're not the brain.  If you have ever had an outer body experience, you would realize this.

Free will just means we have a choice on how we react to our surroundings. That's all. It doesn't matter if you're practicing free will within your body, or outside of your body. You're still experiencing something, and racting to things. Unless you don't react to things? Or maybe you react to things not based on your best assessment of the situation (aka based on what you have learned in the past), but instead react based on some outside source of information that comes from outside of this world? (that would explain why you have made so many awful choices...)

Tell me, how does the brain create a consciousness?  Because from my understanding it can neither be created or destroyed.

Energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Let's consider your side of this. If you have a thought, you have taken one state of how things are, and changed it into another state, whether that's changes in electrochemistry, changes in cosmic consciousness, changes in some ether, or whatever. Doesn't matter. Change, of any kind, requires some amount of energy. Again, doesn't it doesn't matter what the energy is, or where it comes from, just that it requires energy. Pretty much by definition, since nothing can move or readjust without using up some energy. You claim that consciousness can not be destroyed, but that would suggest that it would have to go on thinking about things and changing from one state to another indefinitely, using up energy in the process. That means it would have to use up an infinite amount of energy. But the two things we absolutely know for a fact are 1) energy in our universe is not infinite (entropy will eventually cause all energy in the universe to collapse to zero), and 2) you can't make a perpetual motion device that creates energy out of nothing. Having a consciousness that can never be destroyed, and is thus always using up energy to think, is basically the same thing as having a perpetual motion device that is creating energy, which, as you have also said, can not be created or destroyed.

So, the answer is, consciousness is created by taking some energy source (food, water, electricity, cosmic carma, whatever), and converting it into changes of the state of mind. Biologists, psychologists, and scientists in general would say that the body converts food and water into electrochemical components, sends them to your brain via your veins and arteries, and your brain then uses that energy to run and process things, changing your perception, states of mind, and thoughts, which gives you consciousness. And if your brain ever runs out of energy (you die, or are brain starved from choking), your brain can't convert energy into consciousness any more, and your brain simply shuts off, like your computer would if you were to pull the plug.

People who are not biologists, psychologists, or scientists, say other things.