God is completely inadequate to explain anything whatsoever

[Whateverist]

Science obviously is appropriate to understanding consciousness because no consciousness has ever been encountered outside of a living being, and out of all the live, conscious beings on this planet only we seem to be able to talk about what we experience.

 But again 'science' can not explain consciousness it only observes it. to 'explain it' would allow one to reproduce it. at best we can mimic it.

I'm still working my way through your response but this is the first part where it appears you both understood my statement and I am understanding yours. Before this part I fear we are talking past each other.

Anyhow the article I quoted gave four criteria by which we should judge an adequate theory of consciousness:

1) we understand how macro events emerge from the properties and the organization of the micro events;

2) novel phenomena can be predicted;

3) the system can be manipulated;

4) and it is clear at what level of brain organization the phenomenon resides.

Being able to reproduce it is not on the list. Being able to create a thing from scratch isn't a requirement for understand much about life so I don't see why it should be a criteria where consciousness is concerned. She does mention being able to manipulate and predict responses, but that is a far different matter than creating consciousness in the lab. Hell we can't even produce more than the components of life in a lab currently. I'm pretty sure that can be done. Not so sure about consciousness, leastwise not of our type. (I personally think AI will never do so.)

---

So science will keep guessing and at some point in eternity future you faith tells you science will get it right.

Riddle me this. how is faith in that science will at some point find it's way, but the Same faith in God is pointless?

Nope, science isn't in the business of guessing.

Not deeply familiar with the term "theory or hypothesis are you?" Science uses these terms to fool people like you that the smartest of the smart are doing little more than guessing. and because they are guessing it takes FAITH to accept these guesses/hypothsis as 'scientific theory or facts." The Same FAITH it takes to accept what God has said in the bible.

All things being equal why is your 'faith' any more valid that the faith of a believer?

Side note:

---

My gawd but your quotes are a rat's nest to untangle. And please don't write conscientiousness if what you means is consciousness; that's really bogging me down.

---

Anyhow, the part I bolded is just a gratuitous slander of scientists' intentions which you cannot possibly know. Or else you think this is just an unintended outcome of their work. Either way it is a false equivocation to suggest that the testing of hypotheses and the building of the best explanatory theories which best account for all the accumulated observations (i.e., science) is every bit as dependent on guessing and blind faith as reading the bible and then chatting with God in prayer to be sure you have understood correctly. There are absolutely no checks to keep you from deluding yourself while A/S/K.'ing whereas peer review will keep the incompetent scientist in check.

Go A/S/K God about this and see if He can straighten you out on this point. If He sides with you, then seriously ask yourself how much 'God' is really just you telling you what you want to hear.