DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[The Grand Nudger]

ofc not. I mean things like how quantum mechanics work and the law of attraction and things of that nature.

Neither seems to have any obvious connection to divinity, maybe you could elaborate?  

(I was kind of hoping you'd had a chat with the world spirit or something - I could see how that might fit the description you gave.)

Right. And there is also a whole lot we don't know about consciousness either. I don't believe consciousness is deterministic anyways. One argument I have made about consciousness and whether we can know whether we are the only thing that exists in the past, is in our a priori knowledge that an other (could very well be a person and I don't think that changes the argument) exists in the first place. Why would this be a given in the first place? It shouldn't be, but it is. Our development of life in the first place is what I am talking about. I don't think you are making the argument that we are the "first" life form. If we are not, what is the big distinction between the universe itself being the first living thing and us?

There are things you don;t know about consciousness...and things you don;t believe about it.  This situation is entirely familiar to me, but here again the connection to the divine isn;t obvious?  

As to your question..in what way do you think "the universe" belongs in the set that contains a frog..for example...as opposed to the set that contains a rock, or piles and piles of rocks, even? Frogs seem different from the universe, and the universe seems more like a pile of rocks. We could go into the weeds on it...but, do we need to? Or are you asking..more accurately, why we can;t use some novel value for the term "life" in reference to the universe? If it;s the latter..I;m sure we can..but using that value for the term won;t actually make the universe any more or less like a frog or a rock.