If someone says to me "consciousness, therefore god", what's the best way to respond?

[Athene]

Reminds me of the guy at work: "Tell me how you tink eet is that a dog sneefs and finds dee bodies? It is metafeesical. God is metafeesical! You must beleef dis."

[robvalue]

I don't think there's a sensible definition for "magic". Not one that has anything to do with reality.

If it's something to do with "breaking the laws of nature", then:

1) Humans don't do this anyway

2) If they can be broken, they aren't laws

In the same way, "supernatural" seems meaningless. The nearest thing I could suggest is a being/force in another reality, that can act upon our reality, but which our reality cannot act upon. A one-way deal.

[ignoramus]

Now you're being generous Rob. We both know there's no such thing as supernatural crap. (from any bloody universe or reality)
I'd believe you if we had just one verifiable instance which could be the exception to the rule, but we can't even get that.

All these convoluted explanations from theists just to suck Jesus' virtual dick! They have no standards they will not stoop to, but we atheists are the bad people! Fucking hilarious!

[Bob Kelso]

Mocking laughter .. if you're just not able to hold it in.

I'm usually unable, though that does have the benefit of ending the conversation. 

[robvalue]

Now you're being generous Rob. We both know there's no such thing as supernatural crap. (from any bloody universe or reality)
I'd believe you if we had just one verifiable instance which could be the exception to the rule, but we can't even get that.

All these convoluted explanations from theists just to suck Jesus' virtual dick! They have no standards they will not stoop to, but we atheists are the bad people!  Fucking hilarious!

Exactly, that's the problem. If we can verify it, it's not supernatural. So anyone claiming to have evidence of a supernatural being/occurrence is either lying, or using a very strange definition of "supernatural".

[robvalue]

I forgot to say that someone telling a story is not evidence, when various assumptions have to made for the story to even be possible, let alone probable.

[Mr.wizard]

I consider it "god of the gaps", you have consciousness surrounded by these gaps of "why" and "how" that theists like to plug god into. "God of the gaps" will never be outdated, scientific discovery always leads to more inquiry and as long as we don't know everything there will always be a place to plug in god.

[robvalue]

The correct response is actually to make them watch this video. Because everyone should watch this video. They'll be laughing so hard they'll forget about all that crap they were talking about.

https://vimeo.com/96158629

[KevinM1]

Like with everything else: prove it.

[IATIA]

IMHO, as we are nothing more than bio-mechanical robots, consciousness is nothing more than awareness under the pretext of 'free will'. Bio-chemical reactions that have evolved from "clumps of sub-atomic particles/atoms/cells". If 'free will' were real, that might suggest a possibility of a god, but as a chemical reaction precedes a thought, which proceeds an action, I see no possibility of such a being.

So, my answer to the OP is that "free will must be proven first" and as we are truly "brains-in-a-vat', that would be difficult at best.