Best Theistic Arguments

[Angrboda]

Bare assertion.  You believe that your consciousness is still there when you sleep, but that's based solely on your other beliefs, which are just dogma, so, no, you don't have any evidence that consciousness is "still there" when you're asleep.

Oh, well, if the consciousness is no longer there then it must have taken a flight to the moon, isn't it?  

FOOL.
The only time the consciousness leave the body-brain is when the body die.
You confuse the awareness in consciousness with the consciousness.
Get real yog because the world is passing you by and you are stuck in a sea of dogmas.

Given that you now seem to be asserting that consciousness doesn't require awareness, and therefore is something beyond awareness itself, I'm a at a bit of a loss as to what specifically you are referring to here. Given that, I have to return to things you've said in the past to attempt to make sense of just what you are referring to with the word consciousness here.

Previously, you said the following:

Consciousness is what everything is made of whether there is awareness of one existence or not.

Now this assertion by itself is not problematic, as all it appears to be saying is that there is only one kind of substance in existence, and everything is made of that one kind of substance. This is simply an assertion of substance monism, unless you mean something more specific about what that substance is by using the word consciousness. You could just as easily have said that everything is made of cheese, and I would have no reason to doubt you so long as I don't attach specific properties to the idea of "being cheese." Such a substance monism is perfectly compatible with materialism as materialism only asserts that there is only one kind of substance. As a practical matter, everything is vibrations, as we've already accepted, and all this seems to be saying is that everything is made of them, an unremarkable proposition on its own.

However you also assert the following:

How can something physical-material as the brain can create something bigger and abstract as the consciousness?
Did anybody ever told you what the word ABSTRACT means yog?
And did anybody ever told you what is the difference between material and abstract?

Now, according to the dictionary, abstract means, "thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances." This raises an important question in my mind. If concrete reality is composed of consciousness, and awareness is not the same thing as consciousness, then what is it that you are claiming is apart from the concrete reality? If as you contend, everything is consciousness, then consciousness itself is not in any sense abstract, as it is simply more of the same. Moreover, in suggesting that something you call consciousness in humans is not a part of the concrete reality, i.e. the universal substance, then you are asserting a form of substance dualism, that not only is everything made of consciousness, but that there is another thing which you confusingly also call consciousness, which is not of the same substance as everything else. That seems inconsistent. Beyond that, awareness seems to be the only thing in the existence of a human being which is even hinted at as being apart from the concrete reality of blood and bone and nerves. So exactly what thing are you simultaneously setting apart from "everything" while at the same time saying is the same substance as everything?

The same apply to energy.
If you kill energy-consciousness you kill the whole universe because the universe is made of consciousness.
That is impossible to happen.
That is why consciousness is always there.
The awareness is a different story.
That vary from almost nil in matter to great in humans and to 100% in God's mind.

More dogma.  Do you even understand what reasons and evidence are?

Your philosophy in life is few hundred years behind.  
In fact yours is not even a philosophy.
It is dogma of the worse kind.
Grow up yog.

Again I have to ask what you mean by consciousness? If you simply mean whatever that is which things are made of, then it's relatively unproblematic. However, there doesn't appear to be any reason to believe that the substance of a rock changes when it becomes a part of a plant or a human being. Since you seem to be asserting that some sort of change is occurring, that the vibrations in a rock are somehow different when those vibrations become a skin cell, or a strand of hair, I see nothing to support that proposition. You supposedly have established that awareness is not an essential property of consciousness. By Leibniz's law, things are only identical if their properties are identical. This includes, necessarily, their essential properties, by definition. So the question is, what essential properties does a vibration have that a human being also has, beyond the mere fact of existing, which nobody disputes.

More BS on your part.  
Any body is made of vibrations therefore if you take away the vibrations you take away the full body and the chances to produce more life.
Here I am talking about pure mats.
No vibrations= no body.
No body= no new life.

The body being made of vibrations must be alive in order to create new life and because the body is none but vibrations these vibrations must be fully alive or new life is not possible.    

Still the fallacy of division.  Are you simply too stupid to learn, or are you just stubbornly trying to avoid the obvious?

Fallacy of division my foot.  
The cream of scientists already said that everything is made of vibration therefore a body is none but vibrations so are the vibrations that create more life and who create more life must be alive.
This is pure and clear math not fallacy of division.
FAIL AGAIN YOG.

You're essentially asserting that if a complex body has a property, that the parts of that body necessarily have that property. As already noted, my 'whole' has the ability to get pregnant and give birth to a child. According to the proposition you are forwarding here, then my foot is also necessarily capable of getting pregnant and giving birth to a child. If you believe that to be the case, I can only conclude that you're ignorant of the basic facts of human reproduction. If you are not asserting this, then to assert that the properties of the whole imply the existence of the same properties in the part is simply fallacious. I myself am alive. That doesn't mean it necessarily follows that the vibrations that are a part of me are alive. That simply doesn't follow.

Moreover, I have to here ask what you specifically mean by the word alive, as it does not appear that you mean the same as other people do when they use the word. Various properties are ascribed to life, among them, metabolism and reproduction. If you are asserting that vibrations reproduce, I'd like to see some evidence of that. Otherwise you are just talking in your own private language and I have no idea what you mean when you say that vibrations are alive.

Wrong once again yog.  

Energy and consciousness are NOT two separate things that for some mysterious reasons come to unite.
They are always been together.
Your thought could not exist without energy that is why the two are one.  

I would agree, but for different reasons.  Energy is always there when consciousness is because energy is part of the cause of consciousness the phenomena.  It doesn't follow from the fact that consciousness appears to have something to do with energy that the one and the other are two sides of the same phenomena, so you're just appealing to dogma again.

Cut the crap and your intellectual BS yog.

There has never been a division between consciousness and energy.
The two are inseparable.
They have always been and always will be together.
No need to create divisions because energy-consciousness can not be divided ever.  

This is nothing more than more dogma. You can assert shit like this all you like, until you start providing reasons and evidence for it, nobody needs to take you seriously.

Your way is a long long way to see clear.
By trying to demolish other people ideas (something that you of course fail at every instance) you hope to come up as a winner.
Unfortunately you get nowhere because the real progress depend on you and you alone.
But how can you ever get any progress when you do absolutely nothing to achieve any progress?
Don't you think that is about time to wake up and grow up?

It is a moral and practical good to oppose bad ideas and replace them with better ideas.

As far as progress, who is the one who has remained stagnant for 40 years, doing the same thing over and over again?  What change have you made to your beliefs in that time?  Progress requires change.  No change, no progress.

What I think is it's about time that you shit or get off the pot.  I have a suggestion.  Why don't you present your three strongest arguments for believing that vibrations are alive and so forth, and we'll limit the debate to your strongest evidence.  After discussion of that, we find that even your strongest evidence doesn't measure up, we'll conclude that your beliefs are dogma and nothing real.  You've had two months to get to this point.  I suggest we limit it to another month.  Is that fair?

The evidence that vibrations are alive is very very clear.
You are the evidence.
Your parents were made of vibrations and you too are made of vibrations (not very good vibrations however ).
You are alive therefore the vibrations that make your existence are alive.  

I notice you chose to duck my challenge like a coward and not respond to it. I find it difficult to take you seriously when you obviously don't even have enough confidence in your reasons and evidence to lay it on the line, and instead slink away from the challenge.

What you have instead replied with is yet another claim that because the whole that I am has a certain property, the parts necessarily do as well. As noted already, this is the fallacy of division, and so your conclusion does not follow.

Beyond that, as noted, you seem to be using the words consciousness and life/alive in nonstandard ways. Until you explain to me what the essential properties of each are according to you, I don't have any reason to listen to you as you're just babbling incoherently.