If you have evidence I would love to hear it and it might change my mind although you first need to define god.
For the purposes of my arguments 'God' is simply the consciousness that (I would argue) is responsible for the existence of the Universe. (For clarity: There are no assumptions at this point about it conforming to any particular religion).
In the post to which you refer you went from a discussion of consciousness to "so it must be god who created the universe".
You started out by dismissing the only consciousness we have any experience of
I don't dismiss it at all - rather, I thought I made it clear that the very existence of the consciousness that we experience is fundamental to my arguments.
- that which is an emergent property of the brain
You say that as if it's a fact. It's not. It's purely a hypothesis. And a very ad hoc one at that given that there's absolutely
nothing in physics that gives even the remotest suggestion that consciousness might somehow emerge from atoms arranged in the particular way that happens in the brain.
- and ignore the neuroscience evidence that correlates observed brain activity with thoughts, emotions and processes such as mathematical calculation.
Ignore it? My memory is that I commented extensively on neuroscience in that thread - in particular using the sensation of tasting a strawberry (Me123's example) as a case in point. The point (I believe) I made there was that neuroscience is interesting, but doesn't throw any light on the origins of consciousness. It tells us a lot about how are brains work, but the key problem is that everything in neuroscience is completely consistent with our being machines that happen to act in certain (very complex) ways without actually being conscious of the fact. Unless neuroscience can develop a way to distinguish a conscious sentient being from a mere machine that acts in exactly the same way in all circumstances as a conscious sentient being, then it's not going to help with the question of the origin of consciousness - and I see no indication that neuroscience is able to make any progress in addressing that distinction.
We have no examples of a consciousness without a brain.
Don't we? If there was an example of consciousness without a brain, how would you be able to tell it's there? (In this regard, you might note that many religious people would cite 'God' as the perfect example of consciousness without a brain!)
You also misapplied Occam's Razor, which actually states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. You turned it on its head by assuming the existence of a god.
I don't believe I did. I gave reasons for believing that it makes more sense to assume the Universe arose as a result of consciousness (rather than the other way around). Firstly, assuming that consciousness gives rise to the Universe is no more complex than assuming that our brains give rise to consciousness. And secondly, Occam's razor only really applies if there's no other reason to choose one or other of the possible sets of hypotheses. So on both counts, Occam's razor is irrelevant at that point.
My only use of Occam's razor was to suggest that
once you've accepted that some kind of consciousness is at the source of reality, then it is simpler to assume one consciousness rather than multiple consciousnesses.
Furthermore you failed to take into account other possible explanations for the universe such as the Big Bang, an Oscillating Universe or even "The Matrix".
Whatever makes you think that the Big Bang is inconsistent with some kind of consciousness being the source of the existence of the Universe?
I don't by the way believe that there's any serious doubt about the Big Bang, since evidence from so many sources now points to a big bang - and with remarkable consistency on the date as well. But whatever the early history of the Universe, any purely material theory still leaves unanswered the question of why the Universe, the laws of physics - or for that matter, anything at all, exists.
Your belief leads to the infinite regression - if god created the universe than what created god and so on and so on...
Yes, but then that's kinda true of any theory really. Whatever created the Universe, whether it was some 'God' or whether it was the laws of physics, or whether it was something else, you always end up with the question,
Well what created that? Really, I'd argue that's just another way of restating the problem of
why does anything at all exist? I'd agree that
'What created God?' is problem for my reasoning, but it's no bigger than the problem of '
What created the laws of physics?' if you assume the Universe is purely materialistic.
I note that in post #113 of that thread me123 pretty much demolished your argument that materialism can't account for consciousness.
I don't believe he did. You might note there was a fairly long discussion after #113, in which I went on to counter his points.