Skidoo wrote:
“Pantheism claims that there's a "personal, conscious, and omniscient God". "personal" sounds very monotheistic to me.”

No, this is not true. Pantheism is not a religion (although there may be people out there who claim otherwise). No label is 100% safe from someone abusing it. In fact, many people who hold a pantheistic view don’t even refer to it as such.

From my point of view pantheism = (the universe is what we are). Period. Many pantheists will not even use the word ‘god’ and this is because the word ‘god’ has been so contaminated by the egotistical deities of mythological religions such as Christianity.

Skidoo wrote:
“You haven't really responded to my question : "so what ?" ... yes, what are the benefits to believing in Pantheism ? you didn't develop and that's the most interesting part :-)”

What are the benefits in believing in gravity? Like I’ve said before I didn’t choose to believe in pantheism as a religion based on faith, to me it’s simply a conclusion from everything that I’ve learned in life. To ask me what are the benefits of believing in pantheism is the same as asking me what the benefits are for believing in evolution. I don’t believe in these things because they have benefits, I believe in them because they are the most logical conclusions based on everything I’ve learned in life.

Skidoo wrote:
“Excuse me, but I don't see where Pantheism is helping in science, logic or intuition. can you develop ?”

I don’t recall ever suggesting that Pantheism should help science, logic, or intuition. On the contrary, all I stated is that science, logic, and intuition all support the pantheistic view. That not the same as stating it the other way around as you did.

Skidoo wrote:
There's also the possibility that you're not a "pure" pantheist per se, thus why don't you just read philosophy instead ? I'd highly suggest Sartres, Kant or Nietzsche if your still searching explanations. Because as a strong atheist, I would far better respect your position if you were 100% backing up your religion or philosophy (the way feral does), unless indeed, you're still searching.”

I’m not searching for anything, I’m just telling you the conclusions that I have arrived at in my life. If you don’t find them interesting that’s fine with me.

You seem to be more interested in defending pure atheism. Could you explain what the benefits are for believing in pure atheism. Personally I see no benefits whatsoever. At least in the pantheistic view it’s clear that we are part of something much larger than ourselves (i.e. we are part of this universe).

I’m not sure what atheism actually means. Do you recognize that you are indeed a child of the universe? Do you recognize that you came out of the universe and that Mother Earth is indeed your mother? Do you recognize that all living things are directly related to you, both biologically and indeed in every possible way imaginable? Do you realize that you cannot possibly be separate from this universe that you are?

You say that you are an “strong” atheist, but what does that mean? What is it exactly that you don’t believe in?

May I ask you this,… Forgetting about reincarnation, does the rest of pantheism make any sense to you?

That is that you came out of this universe, you are directly related to everything in it because you are indeed made from the same stuff and you evolved just like everything else around you.

There are pantheists who don’t accept the reincarnation part. They simply can’t wrap their mind around that part of it. Reincarnation is not a necessary part of pantheism. Some pantheists see reincarnation as a natural and necessary conclusion (as I do) and others reject the notion altogether. One could argue that those pantheists are indeed atheists as well. Like I say, pantheism is not a religion, it’s a world view, and it’s not defined in detail. It has one premise (the universe is all there is, and we are it). Really that’s the essence of pantheism. What conclusions you draw from that are your own.

I have several reasons why I believe in reincarnation. One comes from Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and the nature of time, another comes from quantum physics and the nature of matter, another comes from pure logic on many different levels.

Now you want to talk about “strong” convictions. Here’s a strong conviction for you, … the universe is intelligent. To me, this is a given. There can be no doubt whatever that the universe is created by intelligent design.

Christians here this and start screaming, “Run and grab the Bible! We told you so!”. But that’s silly, just because we can recognize that the universe has intelligence doesn’t in any way imply that any particular earthly religion is correct. Especially the one describe in the Bible which actually lacks intelligence. When we recognize that the universe is intelligent that should actually cause us to drop our Bibles in the trash can as being obviously incorrect.

However, there can be no doubt that the universe has intelligence beyond the consciousness of it’s inhabitants.

What is your perspective on how the universe came to be? Do you believe that it was some sort of freak accident that came from nowhere and happened for no reason whosoever and just accidentally happened to create conscious being that could perceive it’s own existence?

Using pure logic we can’t even phantom something coming into existence out of nothing in the first place. That is completely illogical in and of itself. Now you might argue, that it’s just as illogical to imagine that there is an entity that caused it. This is true, but based on who’s logic? This is based on OUR logic. But if such a entity exists it most certainly exists beyond our ability to comprehend. And as you’ve already admitted we can’t even comprehend the universe itself, much less think about comprehending what’s beyond it.

You’ll never convince me that the universe is just some sort of freak accident that came from nothing and accidentally was able to become conscious of itself though us. All purely by accident? An accident that just accidentally happen to become conscious of itself?

I don’t have all the answers, and perhaps I never will, but I do believe that I can rule some concepts out, and I feel that the accident theory has to be ruled out. There are too many “accidents” that would have had to happen in just the right way to create an complete accident that could actually become conscious of itself.

So if your theory is that this is all just one big happy self-conscious accident I would have to ask you for your evidence for that conclusion.

Eljay wrote:
” This is the God of Christianity.”

Every Christian has their own god Eljay. Christians will argue with each other until they are blue in the face, we see this all over the Internet.

I think this is one problem with putting labels on religions. People think if they can put a label on their belief that somehow gives it credence.

Jess wrote:
“Why is it so important to substantiate belief?”

I think most people who “argue” religion are actually trying to substantiate for themselves. It appears that they are trying to convince others, but in truth they are actually trying to convince themselves.

Anoasis wrote:
“But I still enjoy the discussions.... I like talking about men too but it is a given for me that I will never fully understand them... not even close.”



Yes, this is the way I think about philosophical discussions. I have said many times that I’m not into religion. I have said many times that I don’t think of Pantheism as a religion. I have also said that if this site had a Philosophy forum I would post there almost exclusively and never even post to the Religion forum.

You see, religions are based entirely on faith.

Philosophies are created via intellectual ponderings.

Religions are dictated. There is usually a doctrine that comes with them and you just follow the doctrine and blindly accept it (this is the essence of faith).

Philosophies are personal ponderings. We take whatever knowledge we believe we have of our existence and try to make deductions based on what appears to be the most rational conclusions at the time. We are free to change those conclusions because we are not locked into a doctrine by blind faith. People who are faithful to a religion are not free to change it up (even though 99.9% of religious people actually do that anyway via how they interpret the doctrines which are usually ambiguous).

But it’s true, that I’m in the wrong forum. I shouldn’t be in a religious forum. I should be in a philosophy or science forum, but this site doesn’t offer either of those two categories.

Religion requires blind faith and I could never believe in anything based on blind faith.

feralcatlady,

I sincerely think yours are the purest of intentions. Really!

That being said, there is a flagrant contradiction in the different comments you make from one post to another.

Everyone here will agree with the first series of comments you make, regarding your right, and everyone's right to believe in what each and everyone one choses. No one can be against virtue.

You write on that:
"... Religion and the different there of are of man and I frankly don't care what religion people are..."

"... I studied many many religions and my conclusion is that FOR me, myself, and I, is to believe that my Savior Christ died on the cross for my sins and our salvation..."

"... Everything else is irrevlant for me, myself and I..."

".. You also and everyone else can think, believe, do, whatever it is you want to..."


You then coin it further with this clear and very legitimate statement:
"... And again I say to all of you I have come to my conclusion from my own personal experiences, miracles, and the God of all speaking directly to my heart. It's a very personal relationship and thats all..."
(Not sure about "... the god of all" part!??! If it is personnal, it is the God for YOU!, but the rest is clear).

From that, we would be on the same page. Your beliefs are yours, everyone else's beliefs are theirs, and should they happen to meet, great, otherwise, as you say it yourself, : "... everyhing (other than my beliefs) is irrelevant for me myself and I ...", meaning irrelevant to you. That's clear. And that is the way it is, from your personnal perspective.

Where it gets confusing, from other posts of yours, is your claim:
"... But also don't say that I don't have the right to believe what I believe..."

Don't follow you there!!!

No one here has suggested you couldn't believe exactly what it is that you believe.
NO one has implied that those personnal experiences of yours, which have shaped your 'personnal' ('me, myself and I', as you say) convictions and beliefs are illegitimate or 'not right'!!!

If someone did that on this thread, I missed it. Please point it out to me, and I will categorically serve a serious correction to that moralistic individual. I will defend your right to believe exactly what it is you believe, without ever having to agree myself with your beliefs.

That being said, what I suspect provokes the reaction of different posters, including myself, has to do with this contradiction in your comments I referred to earlier.

The contradiction lies between the personal (me, myself and I) basis of any belief, and the line that you chose to cross in serving it to everyone, whether they invite you to do so or not.

That approach is all yours, and there are no laws against it.

But it is an infringing approach, a moralistic approach to many, an approach which shows no interest in the beliefs or opinions of others (irrelevant as you say), and yet implies that others have to 'listen' to yours.

This appraoch brings people to react, and point out that while you may have all the interest in the world for your beliefs, you have no right to take for granted that they could or should be of interest to anyone else.

The contradiction is summed-up with the following statements you make in another post:

"... I will ask you something Anoasis if the God that I believe in came to you and looked you smack in the face and said I am who I am......and gave you a message that you knew could only be from the The Lord God...Would you say nothing? and if so how would that look in his eyes if you ignored him like that. Do you think he would be fine with your silence?..."

That is now crossing the line of the 'personnal'. You now wish to engage with 'others'. This is no longer the 'me, myself and I' domain.

In the public domain, if a person already welcomes your words, great! You will have a sympathetic converstion with that person whom shares the same beliefs.

If, on the other hand you speak your 'personal' beliefs to someone for whom those beliefs are irrelevant (as his or her different beliefs are irrelevant to you), please don't act like the offended one when those people indicate that your beliefs are not welcomed to them!!!
That they don't personnally believe what you personnally believe. You should leave it at that. "... what they do with it is upto them" as you say. And not buying it is part of what they can do!!!

The contradiction is that you do not leave it at that!

This statement of yours, pointing to a somewhat improductive and attitude (delusional frustration), is in my humble opinion the source of the contradiction:

"... that sometimes I get frusterated that what the heck would it take for some of you to believe..."

Frustration is a very selfish emotion. It shows up when something or in this case, someone(s) get in the way of your fulfilling your own self-serving expectations.
In this case your self-serving expectation is,
... fufilling what YOU BELIEVE to be YOUR God's request to bring his word to others.
And when others are not getting the word of YOUR PERSONNAL BELIEF, you get frustrated. You put it this way:

"... And when he speaks to my heart....I listen and I do what is asked. I have been called by God to bring his word to the people...and by golly that what I will do....until he speaks otherwise..."

Well, 'by golly', keep 'bringing the word' if you must, if your personnal belief orders you to, but you must give up the selfish part
"... that sometimes I get frusterated that what the heck would it take for some of you to believe...".

NOTHING!!! will make others believe in YOUR personnal beliefs, when they believe in something opposite.

You further suggest:
"... I'm just the messenger and what you do with the information is totally up to you..."
Well if it is up to me, as you say, and with all due respect to your personnal belief, you are no messenger to ME!!!

"... I'm just a messenger (to others)..."

... is very much part of your 'personnal' belief, and you have the right to that, but if you include ME IN THE OTHERS, please be clear that you are taking serious delusional liberties.

I do not consider you a messenger of anything for ME! Much less a messenger from a god of YOUR personal belief or fabrication, wich turns out to be irrelevant to me.

But that is ME. Personnal to ME. The 'me, myself and I' whom believes that the messenger thing is crap (to ME).

I respect your right to believe that for yourself pesonnally, but please, for your own sake, stop taking for granted that I, or anyone else whom doesn't share your personnal belief, should find it interesting or relevant for oursleves.
That is a delusion.
You believe something to be true about others in general, which is NOT REAL, NOT TRUE!!!


I don't judge you for your 'personnal' beliefs, in your personnal domain, but when you cross the personnal domain line, YOU must deal with 'others', and realize their personnal beliefs (just as legitimate as yours) can turn out to be the the exact opposite from yours.

That's is all.

I trust you are sincere when you say :
".. You also and everyone else can think, believe, do, whatever it is you want to..."

Just give up the frustration (intent to force your beliefs because your God'S forces you to) when someone like me, shows up and 'thinks, believes and does whatever it is I believe in" as you say, that is different from you.

Thank you Voil for voicing what I am far too tried of trying to get across to people.

FeralCatLady wrote:
"... I will ask you something Anoasis if the God that I believe in came to you and looked you smack in the face and said I am who I am......and gave you a message that you knew could only be from the The Lord God...Would you say nothing? and if so how would that look in his eyes if you ignored him like that. Do you think he would be fine with your silence?..."

Of course Anaosis would not reject god if god made an appearance to her. No one would.

What would YOU do if god came to you and told you that the Bible has absolutely nothing to with her and you’ve been studying the wrong book and worshiping the wrong man all along?

What would YOU do then?

That's basically the same thing that you are suggesting to Anoasis.

Abra wrote;

"Every Christian has their own god Eljay. Christians will argue with each other until they are blue in the face, we see this all over the Internet."

Ah... and there we have it. This statement cannot possibly be true - in the sense that it defies logic. The God of Christianity is not defined by what people think He is - but how He defines Himself in the scriptures. If two Christians disagree with who and what God is - only two scenario's can be correct. Either one of them is correct, and the other wrong - else both are wrong. And therefore - by self definition (the scriptures that is) Either one is a Christian, and the other isn't, or else neither of them is. For the bible is not wanting for describing God. So to claim to be an adherent of Christianity - you are accepting the definition of God in the bible - and are fullfilling the "requirements" of Jesus for salvation to be reconciled to Him (God), which is what makes someone a Christian.

So the logic of Christianity is - God is defined by the scriptures. By putting your faith in Him, and trusting in the finished work of Christ on the cross for salvation - you receive the gift of the Holy Spirit - which leads one to all truth, and having received the Holy Spirit - one has the right to claim to be a Christian. This is the gospel message. So how can two "Christians" have a differing God and both be right if they know the truth? Logically - they cannot. So, unless there's something missing here - what is unacceptable logically in your statement is that both of the people with differing God's in your example cannot both be Christians.

Eljay :
Animals build nests and burrows, however there's no such thing as an animal church where they unite to praise their immediate "superiors". Unless witnessed otherwise, insects don't praise birds, birds don't praise cats, and cats don't praise humans, even though every specie could possibly consider its superiors as "gods", since they are entities they can't comprehend. But they don't. Why should we ?

Animals don't build weapons of mass destruction, and slaughter their females and their young in mass quantities either...

Superior!! Pfffttt!!

On the one hand they worship goodness and peace, and fellowship, and on the other, destroy the very fellowship that is being cited...humans are a strange breed.

indeed we are a strange breed I just don't understand

Abra:
With all due respect, the length of your response reflects one thing to me : confusion.

I respect your conclusions, but they're often contradictory and in many ways illustrate a lack of knowledge of what Pantheism really is. It's like you've cooked your own sauce and decided the closest philosophy fitting your thesis is called Pantheism.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. And I'll start with the definition of pantheism as it's described by true pantheists themselves in wikipedia. Do some research and you'll see that indeed, Pantheism is based on the true belief there's a god-like entity above us, that is "personal", "conscious" and "omniscient" (quoted from wikipedia).

- "Personal": my understanding is that this "god" is in every person, thus every living entity of the universe (humans too). Are objects such as stones included ? Objects are not "persons", are they ? But they're part of our universe, right ? I see here a first contradiction.

- "Conscious": we have a god that is a spirit present in every person, distinct of our own conscious, designing his big picture through us, as if we were puppets.

- "Omniscient": in order to be omniscient, the pantheistic god needs to have created invisible spirit-like connections between every single person hosting a share of his spirit. Exactly like the world wide web.

This is my understanding of Pantheism and the way it's defined by pantheists themselves.

Now you say that it's precisely science, logic and intuition that lead to such conclusions. First, intuition has nothing to do neither with science nor logic, and to be totally honest, intuition remains something very abstract to me and would deserve illustration as it's no part of the 5 senses that make us define our reality.

And when it comes to science and logic, I really don't see where it leads to Pantheism, besides the obvious fact we're part of this universe. I can say that water wets, does that make it a philosophy ? I mean, come on, it's a bit too easy to say that because science confirms we're made out of atoms that pantheism is true. Fortunately, there's much more to pantheism than this obvious and dumb fact.

Once again, pantheism is based on 3 factors describing its universal god (personal, conscious, omniscient), and there's no such thing as scientific proof of such a thing i'm aware of.

And for your information, according to the latest surveys, 60% of scientists are atheists. I know, it's not 100%, but a good portion of scientists being americans, I'll tend to believe they're the ones who are theists or agnostics. In europe, figures are much closer to 100%.

It's just like your justification of reincarnation. There's not the slightest scientific evidence of a separate spirit from our physical body, and still you rely on science to make yourself comfortable with it. What a joke. If there would be any scientific illustration for reincarnation, it would rather be the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy), but in now way relativity or quantum physics.

_________

Now, when it comes to my claim of being a "strong" atheist, it's simply because there's 2 sub-categories, one is "weak" and the other one is "strong". It's gnostic atheism vs agnostic atheism.

______________

About the "intelligence" of the universe.

I'm afraid that "intelligence" could also be called simply "evolution". Where you see a "design" master-planed by an omniscient universal god, I see evolution and the selection of the most probable perennial event.

Btw, that's one of your contradiction, because when you say : "To ask me what are the benefits of believing in pantheism is the same as asking me what the benefits are for believing in evolution", I assume you believe in evolution too, then.

And that's precisely what your so-called "intelligence" of the universe is. It simply obeys to the laws of physics and what you call "accidents" is nothing else but the process of evolution in action and the selection of the best occurrence.

_______________

About the meaning of the universe and its course

You say : "your theory is that this is all just one big happy self-conscious accident ...".

Now you're arguing like feral and use your own theory to draw conclusions. Like a dog trying to eat his own tail. Because when you say "self-conscious" and "accident", that implies :

1) the universe is "conscious" (which is the pantheistic theory I don't share)

2) nothing is here by accident, there's a master plan

See ? you're running in circle. The same way feral uses the bible to justify her faith.

Now if you want my humble opinion on this subject, it's simply that before the big-bang(s) (nothing proves there's only 1 universe), there was nothing. Oh, i know what you're gonna say : "nothing ? how's that possible? !!!". By nothing, I mean no universe and no time either. It's hard to figure, I know, but it's the most likely.

The same way quantum physics taught us a particle may be physically present in 2 locations at the same time. It's just that it's beyond logic and comprehension for us at this stage.

The problem with theists - and yes, you are a theist, whether you like it or not - is that they're afraid of the very notion of void. They can't figure absence of existence, emptiness and void. And this is understandable as it's not a "natural" concept to apprehend, given what our reality is.

But it's unfortunately the most probable origin and fate of our universe. Now, in regards to what's in between, it's all digression and pointless analysis. Your dog could ask itself why you talk and drive a car, and never get the answer because he's not intelligent enough to figure it out and even to ask the question. Thus it's highly probable that our level, we too are too dumb to ask the right questions.

Voil....you are 100% correct......and Im now going to step back, pray. And just see what happens......

Skidoo,

I can see from your last post that you aren’t interested in hearing other people’s views. That was my mistake, I apologize.

Hope you have a good day sir.

abra said : "Skidoo, I can see from your last post that you aren’t interested in hearing other people’s views."

I can't figure where you see that in my post. If you do see such condescension, please accept my apologies, it wasn't my intention.

On the contrary, I'm very opened to discussion and ready to be convinced. What I did is simply pinpointing flaws in your approach of what you define as pantheism.

Eventually, your reaction could also mean you're closer than you think to someone you've criticized a lot (Feral) and not ready for contradiction, just like her.

people please play nice dont turn on eachother! lets make sure our scorn is targetted at those who deserve it like those christian fascists weve been arguing with

It wasn’t your condescending approach that object to, although I did sense that as well. For example,…

Skidoo wrote:
“The problem with theists - and yes, you are a theist, whether you like it or not - is that they're afraid of the very notion of void.”

Here you place me in a box and add that this is where I am (whether I like it or not), and then even add that you believe to know what my fears are. It’s not only condescending but quite presumptuous on your part.

I could claim that atheists have a fear of something bigger than themselves and this is why they reject any notion of a supreme consciousness. But why should I presume that anyone has any fear at all?

There are a myriad of things in your post that makes it clear to me that you are jumping to conclusions far beyond anything I intended to convey. I’m seriously not interested in attempting to clarify all of them piecemeal, especially in light of the fact that you will probably treat those responses similarly.

I would like to touch on one point though that clearly shows that you did not understand where I am coming from,…

Skidoo wrote:
“1) the universe is "conscious" (which is the pantheistic theory I don't share)”

You have no choice but to share this view, especially in light of the fact that you claim that humans have no spiritual element. As an atheist you are this universe, and you are conscious. Therefore the universe has consciousness. To deny that the universe is conscious would require denying your very own consciousness. As an atheist you have no choice but to concede that you are the universe perceiving itself. Otherwise your claim to atheism holds no water. You would need to attribute your consciousness to something other than the universe.

Skidoo wrote:
“Eventually, your reaction could also mean you're closer than you think to someone you've criticized a lot (Feral) and not ready for contradiction, just like her.”

I don’t see any parallels here. Feral was trying to sell an old doctrine that has been around for millennia. There is nothing significant that she could tell me about that religion that I don’t already know. I have already told her that I’ve been there and done that and it’s too full of contradictions and inconsistencies for me. To continue to harp on it after that is beating a dead horse.

I’m not trying to sell anything. I was simply atempting to convey my view and why I am driven to believe it. Originally I sincerely thought you might be interested based on the fact that you are an atheist. But clearly you are hostile to the idea. That’s fine with me. I have no problem with that and I’m fine with not trying to shove my view down your throat. If you want to believe that there is no spiritual nature to the universe that's fine with me.

Skidoo wrote:

Animals build nests and burrows, however there's no such thing as an animal church where they unite to praise their immediate "superiors". Unless witnessed otherwise, insects don't praise birds, birds don't praise cats, and cats don't praise humans, even though every specie could possibly consider its superiors as "gods", since they are entities they can't comprehend. But they don't.

***** And could you please explain to me how you know this to be a fact? Because YOU don't think so - is that why? I'll tell you one thing I can state with absolute certainty - you know absolutely NOTHING about what an animal does as far as a relationship with God - nor how they think.

Why should we ?

Skidoo wrote:

Animals build nests and burrows, however there's no such thing as an animal church where they unite to praise their immediate "superiors". Unless witnessed otherwise, insects don't praise birds, birds don't praise cats, and cats don't praise humans, even though every specie could possibly consider its superiors as "gods", since they are entities they can't comprehend. But they don't.

***** And could you please explain to me how you know this to be a fact? Because YOU don't think so - is that why? I'll tell you one thing I can state with absolute certainty - you know absolutely NOTHING about what an animal does as far as a relationship with God - nor how they think.

Ooops - double pst. Weird. What's going on here, system is
c-r-a-w-l-i-n-g


Lizard - What Christian fascists?

Voil wrote:

"I will defend your right to believe exactly what it is you believe, without ever having to agree myself with your beliefs. "

Me too. Everyone may and should speak if they feel moved to do so... but it would be nice if everyone was courteous about it... passion in ones beliefs is a wonderful thing but so is respect for the beliefs of others.

abra :

1) i'm not placing you in any box, you do it yourself. You claim to be a pantheist, right ?.. therefore you are a theist. Am i missing something ?

and when i added "whether you like or not", it was just to emphasize that you seemed in your own topics to distance yourself sometimes from pure pantheists and not share 100% of pantheism thesis, that's all. But if there's a sure fact, it's that pantheism is a theistic philosophy.

____________

2) fear of void : i'm just saying that there's 2 roots for religions and creation gods : it's either (or both) fear of death and/or fear of void (lack of explanation for origins of the universe, what is outside or before our universe). You said in a previous post that you're not afraid of death. I conclude that the second type of fear is probably what drives you into believing in pantheism. However, I might be wrong in your case, but this assumption is still valid for most theists.
But don't get me wrong. Atheists have fears too. I, for example, am terribly afraid of both death and void (the latter usually following the first), precisely because I believe there's nothing after, no reincarnation and no god to soothe the grief of my own death. I just didn't choose to go the easy way and not fall into religion, even though I was a true catholic until I was 15 years old.

______________

3) "you have no choice but to share this view especially in light of the fact that you claim that humans have no spiritual element. As an atheist you are this universe, and you are conscious. Therefore the universe has consciousness."

... Well, now you're becoming presumptuous too :-)

I think your error is to declare : conscious = spirit

It is, in my humble opinion, 2 separate things.

a) conscious
Every living creature has a conscious of its environment, of its own reality. This conscious is nothing but perceptions routed from its senses to the nerves and then to the brain or reflex center.

b) spirit
that is an abstract thing that would position humans above animals. there no evidence it exists, and when in evolution it suddenly appeared making humans "different".

That being said, you continue to say that one has no other choice than drawing the conclusion the universe has a conscious. I don't know if you like maths, but it's not because elements of a group have all separately a given characteristic that the group itself has necessarily the same characteristic.
In other words, it's not because living creatures have each a conscious of their reality that the container (universe) has a conscious of its own. And considering could be a big mistake, because it'd imply that the universe "conscious" as a whole would be the sum of all individual consciouses. Unfortunately, as far as I know, you can't add apples and bananas in an equation. Each of us has a different conscious, his own perception and even his own reality. Not even to mention animals consciouses. Therefore, because your conscious is different than mine (because your reality is different than mine), you can't add them up to create a kind of "supra-conscious". But again, that's me, and i fully respect your point of view.

I just regret indeed you don't go a bit deeper in your explanations, because indeed, I find it a very interesting subject.