Just kneel and pray at your bed before going to sleep. That donkey will come around.. — Haglund

Nah! Rather than praying to non-existent dead donkey gods, I will just continue to try to oust the capitalist profit hoarders and insist that prices are reduced or pensions increased.
I hope the next time you hurt yourself you get cured through prayer and you don't get all 'hypocritical' and visit a doctor! :lol:
Oh sorry! Its not good that I laugh at my own attempts at humour. :joke:

For which the donkey with the Golden Coin Donkey god would come in handy! — Haglund

Typical non-existent god, never around when you need one.

Do you believe in the asininuous donkey shitting gold pieces? Could be... — Haglund

Hey! don't be so disrespectful towards a god going to the toilet!

Ah! I see what your primal fear is now. You fear there is more than the universe.. — Haglund

Nope, my main primal fear is that the price of certain single malt whisky might get too high for the contents of my sporran!

I don't wanna get uploaded in that file! The chips might explode — Haglund

I bet the whole computer including the chip, would turn bright orange with a yellow top and its first communication would be
"Seriously folks, this is the best, most wonderful chip of all the chips that have ever existed in a Universe full of chips, really folks, its the truth, it really is, all those other chips are just .fake and .foolish chips @L'éléphant"

The creatures in heaven got it figured out damned well! — Haglund

You offer science-based commentary then you raise the incompatible flag above at the end. In my opinion you further demote your gods. It seems to me that god has been moving in the same direction as the Earth-centered Universe or in the direction of the human race since Carl Sagan's great demotions.
The god you describe does not even qualify for omni status and is not even singular. You present these gods are some kind of early failed civilisation that used to exist somewhere you label heaven?
The stories of Hans Christian Anderson are more convincing as facts and he had the advantage of having christ and Christian in his name, showing he was a qualified creator of fables.

The gods are eternal, mysterious, a riddle. — Haglund

I think you are talking about life, not gods. I think you just use the god label because you like a little woo woo in your life and it has the extra benefit of sating your primal fears, even though you deny it.
When your god posit is just based on, n my opinion. pure irrational emotional need, we are left with nothing but an exchange of opinion.

Don't you involve god(s) in your question? What difference does it make if you push creation back to an infinitely far away past? — Haglund

Yes, I did but only to expose them as 'unlikey sources,' of our Universe.
The difference was explained by @apokrisis as well as me. The god posit gets pushed further and further back in its 'moment of spark.' It becomes less convincing that the god posited by any current religion has traction.

:lol: Careful, we don't want to entice others and incite a 'who can come up with the best file extension or file name with extension for a future downloaded human consciousness competition'

How about:
DonaldTrump.awForFu**Sake

It can be explained by the imprint of a previous ending of a previous universe — Haglund

This is just the same as what Penrose is claiming. If you agree that the Universe oscillates between linear time frames of existence, then you agree with Penrose. You may disagree on the mechanisms involved but you agree on the results.

Darwinian evolution is a theory — Possibility

The evidence for the evolution of species is strong enough to be fact in my opinion and I think that is a majority opinion, in the absence of equally strong evidence of an alternate origin.
So what is the alternate theory(s) that you currently have under consideration?

we evolved into the most highly variable organism, enabling us to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration. — Possibility

What do you mean by 'variable?' There is more variety in dog type or bird type than human type.
If you are saying that we have more variety in actions then this is part of the evidence which supports:

The idea that we evolved to be the best at species-level ‘survival — Possibility

as are:

enabling us to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration. — Possibility

Which further supports 'best at species level survival.' You provide support for this 'ridiculous contrivance.'

I’m saying that you’re assuming this is how the god posit was first suggested, when there is no evidence to confirm this. — Possibility

Yet you offer no alternate view of why the god posit was initially formed. If not from human primal fear then from what human thought processes/needs, do you suggest god formed from? or do you think it was in direct communication with the ancients?

Sure, and saying we should therefore focus on building machines rather than fashioning writing implements or training horses would be presumptuous, don’t you think? — Possibility

Where did I suggest abandoning horses or pens because we have cars or computers? I advocate prioritising new tech over old but old tech can be very useful at times. The point you make is trivial.

That’s right - science requires humanity not just as a conscious observer, but a self-conscious, ethical participant. — Possibility

I agree.

When we pursue science for it’s own sake, we tend to pursue our own destruction. And when we pursue it purely for our current interests, we whittle away at our future. — Possibility

Not a viewpoint I share. We are creatures that ask questions, that is our prime directive. We are incapable of stopping our need to question, in my opinion. We must be wise, yes, we must tread carefully and consider the consequences of what we do and why we are doing it but we must not become too afraid to do anything. If taking a chance is the only alternative to stagnation then I vote for taking the chance. I would be content to die in pursuit of new knowledge but I would also be devastated if others died because of my decision to take the chance and I would have to live and die with that decision but I would still understand why I made it. No one has ever said life is always easy.

Science is as destructive when carelessly handled as it is useful. There is a framework needed here — Possibility

I agree, this would be a wise approach.

transhumanism doesn’t appear to be it.
Transhumanism doesn’t account for the inevitable hierarchical distinction between self-interest and philanthropy, let alone between ‘some’, ‘most’ and ‘all’ humans. Nor does it hide its anthropocentric priority. It harks back to the wide-eyed enthusiasm for Humanism, and all the marketing hype that hits us right in our primal fear, promising the world... — Possibility

So you are basically a pessimist then? or at least as far as the possibilities offered by transhumanism go. I don't agree.

In other words, talk as if loving but act as if living, and pretend you offer the ‘best’ of both - just like every other religion. You’ll pardon me if I don’t buy it... — Possibility

Ok, pardon granted. You have the right to vote against.

we just need confidence in the accuracy of our next move. That’s all we’ve ever needed. — Possibility

Then, it is the responsibility of those in control to reassure you or explain to you that despite your objections they are going to 'take the chance,' anyway but I would support you if those in control do not have a democratic mandate to 'make the next move,' you are concerned about.

Because then it could be explained by science. In principle. — Haglund

It depends what level of explanation you want but I am sure a neuroscientist could satisfy you, if you really need to know whats going on in your brain mechanistically, what processes are involved and which emotions, intensity levels, and chemicals are involved, when you lovingly reacted to squeezing your partner's toe.

What you typed is very human. No god involved, just you and the woman you love.
If you abandoned god now would your 'squeeze' have less meaning to you?
I am glad I need no god to provide me with moments of 'heaven.' I can create them for myself and between myself and others. I can experience any level of happiness and contentment you can and I don't need any acknowledgment of non-existent gods to do so.

Ok. How would a physicist investigate those physical properties? — Jackson

Well as soon as someone or something performs an act which is not possible under the known laws of physics. We can call in the physicists to confirm that this physical manifestation may be god and not just a weird quantum fluctuation that used quantum tunneling to pass through a physical barrier.

No he doesn't believe in inflation — Haglund

I don't think Penrose would use the term 'believe,' in this context. He thinks inflation is an incorrect part of the origin theory.

The problem is how to put the bang in that low entropy future. The energy balance doesn't fit. — Haglund

But it must have happened if he is correct about the 6 'Hawking points,' unless they can be successfully accounted for by other means.

I'm always looking for what it all means and why we're here — Haglund

So am I yet I don't accept god as the answer. How come I can do that if god is so essential/fundamental to any meaning or reason in life as you suggested earlier. The burden is on you to explain anomolies such as me in your god posit.

gives a kind of liberated feeling — Haglund

I feel liberated but still no god required!

Because it's not intelligent. It needs intelligence, call it intelligent design, to create the spark. The spark can't explain itself. I think there are zillions of these sparks — Haglund

Sounds like you are suggesting zillions of intelligent sparks. I think you are a panpsychist not a theist.

What definition of God makes it a physical entity? — Jackson

God is often described as omnipotent. By that definition it can manifest physically anytime it wills it.
If it can't do that then it is not omnipotent so it would fail one of the omni definitions of god

But a big bang doesn't need concentrations of photonic energy. It needs concentrations of inflationary energy. — Haglund

I don't think Penrose is an advocate of 'inflation,' have a look at:
https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/sir-roger-penrose-cosmic-inflation-is-fantasy/

Those come in at the cause of the unintelligent spark. What brought virtual particles into existence? — Haglund

Why can't we just call the unintelligent spark, god?

But theism is far MORE in giving meaning and reason for existence and life. — Haglund

I have answered you in the thread 'Question regarding panpsychism,' where you responded to me with a similar comment.

Like providing meaning or reason. — Haglund

That doesn't provide a reason to live. At least, not for me — Haglund

Sounds like you are on a quest for a personal meaning or reason for your own existence and hoping that the answer you find will be a 'universal truth.' Perhaps THEE Universal truth. Even better than science's attempt to find a ToE. Your best personal answer so far is god but I would ask you the following question.

If we remove god as your answer for a moment. Does your life lose all meaning? What would change?
If your answer is that I would feel less......what? secure?....more what?......more meaningless?
Then ask yourself why do I feel (as in me, Stephen!) that my life is full of meaning and reason.
How is it possible for me to feel that without any god(s) playing any role at all in my life?
If you think they/it are/is so fundamental then how come I exist very happily without it/them?
Are you sure you need god so much? I can confirm you have vital meaning and reason to live.
You are needed to look at the Universe in awe and wonderment, without you or the like of you, THE UNIVERSE has reduced meaning. You have things the wrong way round. You don't need god to give you meaning and reason. The universe needs you to give it meaning and reason.

But at least He is regressed to an infinite distance. — apokrisis

:lol: In fact so far regressed that HE (I prefer it) seems to me like a tiny mindless spark with no intent. I am happy to label this first cause, this mindless spark with no self-awareness, no intelligence no intent and no current existence of any kind......god.

It doesn't matter what explanation you propose. It never will. Someone will always just move the needle back and say, "But what caused that?" Ironically, this needle also applies to a God. "What caused a God to exist? — Philosophim

Yep, infinite regress, first cause required is the old chestnut but you offer a perfectly acceptable answer imo later on with:

But, due to the nature of a first cause, it could be a simple particle appearing. — Philosophim

The point is: Don't get excited and think this will change theist's minds. Theism is about far more than science and logic — Philosophim

I don't feel a burden to 'change theists' minds.' I simply enjoy the debate. If I change the mind of any theist in the process then all the better. Theism is far LESS than science and logic and of much less value, in my opinion.

If the current matter in the universe turn to photons in the future, the energy of the photons dilutes more and more. The universe will not contain any energy anymore. Time still continues but there is nothing left anymore to create a new universe from. — Haglund

I don't think Penrose agrees with you here. He suggests that there can be an energy concentration that causes a new big bang. He suggests that entropy will effectively stop when there is no mass left in the Universe and this totality of (probably photonic) energy is the singularity which becomes the next big bang. At least that's my probably inaccurate interpretation of what he has suggested.

I don't see what gods have to do with this. — Haglund

I am glad you agree that gods have nothing to do with this.

If they are the fundaments, there ain't something to explain them — Haglund

A mindless spark with no intent or intelligence whatsoever is my favourite suspect for a 'first cause.'

The fact that Peterson didn’t seem to get that the tiles were not actual tiles but part of a mathematical problem made me feel embarrassed for him — I like sushi

:lol: But I must admit that in my head I kept seeing little square tiles and tesselation type patterns.
But I could feel JP's discomfort when RP kept saying 'well no, it's not the same thing,' to most of JP's attempts to follow him. There were also many moments when RP seemed to struggle to understand points JP was trying to make regarding his attempt to connect musical composition with the tiling problem or how it might relate to 'paradoxical forms' or his comments about trying to see 'something that's not random,' 'a uniting principle,' which connects Penrose's thought processes etc. I think RP responded with something like 'I don't know, your question is too hard to answer.'
I would need to watch the exchange a good few more times to gain a better understanding of all that passed between them.

Anyway, always a delight to listen to Penrose. — I like sushi

I absolutely agree! But I am also a big fan of Jordan Peterson and Richard Dawkins. I think people with fierce intellects in opposite camps offer value to all listeners.

Have you read ‘Cycles of Time’? The way he explains matrixes is utterly breathtaking! Makes something so abstract almost tangible — I like sushi

No but it sounds like I should read it.

You have said this many times already. That god comes from nothing but primal fear. That's not true. I know it's not so for me. Well, maybe fear of thinking that science has the answers. That's a bed time story all the same. "Don't worry child, the big bang made it all for you. Although it knew nothing, the stuff back then was completely ignorant, it still brought itself into existence — Haglund

Yes, I have, and I intend to keep doing so until it's proven demonstrably incorrect.
I don't know what your personal god does for you or why you need it but I cannot compare it to any of my own conceptions of what primal fear is until you can clearly express what your god does for you and why you need it. If you claim that it's simply your logical conclusion for the creator of the Universe then we are at an impasse, as I think that is just an incorrect conclusion, that theists repeat at least as often as I repeat my primal fear reasoning. At least I don't repeat from a window in the Vatican or from an authoritative pulpit position.

what caused the stuff and rules it obeys into existence? — Haglund

Why not 'random happenstance?'

but why strings and dimensions exist in the first place is not answered by string theory — Haglund

Not yet but I suspect the answer will be random chance, not deliberate intent (by a god or any other system capable of intent).

You do realise that all of this is interpretation. Even Darwinian evolution and this notion of ‘survival of the fittest’ are constructed according to assumptions (fears) and preferences (desires). — Possibility

Interpretation is YOUR choice of label that does not make it appropriate for what I typed. It's in the judgment of others to decide if they agree with any 'interpretive,' element YOU judge as present in what I typed
.
Darwinian evolution is fact, it is not an interpretated construct. Natural selection is also fact.
Survival of the fittest or those that develop the most successful survival strategy is evidenced by the fact that we have more control over our fate compared to any other species on the planet.

There is no ‘of course’ about it. — Possibility

My 'of course' is valid in my opinion. Are you saying that the god posit is a surprising/unexpected one, given the ignorance within which it was first suggested by the ancients?

We like to think/hope that science and transhumanism will enable us ALL to gain control over death, but this is no less a bedtime story than religion is. — Possibility

Well I understand what you are saying but its similar, in my opinion, to me chiseling on a clay tablet addressed to you 1000 years ago that I think that in 1000 years we will be able to communicate with another human anywhere on the Earth, using machines and my words will reach you seconds after I despatched them, no matter how far away from me you are on the Earth.
I am sure the response of many, would be:
'We like to think/hope that future science will enable us ALL to communicate so quickly but this is just a bedtime story.'

Science is motivated by answers to questions and pays zero attention to humanity when left to its devices. And frankly, transhumanism smacks of self-interest masquerading as philanthropy, tbh. — Possibility

Is that YOUR interpretation? If so then fine you are entitled and welcome to it but I disagree.
The most significant science on this planet is performed only by humans so in what way are these human scientists ignoring their own humanity?
Transhumanism satisfies both, unashamedly! self-interest and philanthropy. Nothing wrong with that is there?

In the end, I think all these interpretations of who we intend to be as humans point towards a fundamental question we need to ask ourselves: if it came down to a choice between living and loving, which would I choose? And if the answer is ‘it depends’, then perhaps we still have need of god, after all - if only as as a framework for our understanding. — Possibility

So don't accept the answer 'it depends,' exclaim an imperative to balance between both in all judgments and don't exclude either.
'Need of god' is only still true for those who still have little control over their primal fears and need god the superhero to reassure them when they are alone or scared or close to death.
I have not completely conquered my own fears, primal or otherwise, nor would I want to, but I have made enough progress to not need a god fable to help me when I am in trouble. I would rather rely on fellow humans. If I am in pain, I will turn to medical personnel, not useless prayer.
If I am close to death, I will revel in the fact that I am going to disassemble and become part of that which I came from, universal raw materials. I am content with that.

I don't know what kind of individuals are you referring to. — Alkis Piskas

That's true you don't and I can't/won't provide their names, contact details and qualifications here.

I know how computers work and no one yet knows fully how the human brain works, including you.
Why do you limit your thinking to downloading a single human consciousness onto what is currently identified/labeled 'a computer chip?' Who suggested that?
That seems rather restricted, unlikely and simplistic contemporary thinking.
We have made astonishing breakthroughs in the past. Do you really think that we never will again?
Do you think human scientific endeavor will simply not achieve a full understanding of how the human brain works and be able to 'replicate it?' Even if we consider a timescale such as a million years of scientific effort?
What do you think you know about human consciousness that proves that downloading an individual human consciousness and storing it outside the vessel of the traditional physical human body with triune brain, is impossible?
How often has sci-fi become sci-fact? I think often enough is the answer.

Probably the label 'computer chip,' will be as technically advanced to the transhumans of 1m years from now, as the label 'sharpened flint,' is to us now.

(If you had the same knowledge in both fields as I do, you would most probably say the same things.) — Alkis Piskas

No, I wouldn't as I am not you and don't think like you.

Interesting that you cite ‘human primal fears’ as the basis of a need for god - where do they fit into your list of ‘human mind, the scientific method, and empiricism’? — Possibility

Well I think that the Darwinian facts related to human evolution and jungle rules such as 'survival of the fittest,' and the reality we see every time we watch David Attenboroughs reports on the animal world demonstrate a very unattractive story that does not match the theistic stories of an omnibenevolent deity.

If any of the animals I see getting chased down by lionesses, hyenas, wolfs etc have any capacity to feel then they must be f****** terrified. Just like we were as we hid in our caves at night in ancient times. OF COURSE, we invented gods to give us hope of some ultimate protection against such terrors.
I think all animal species would do the same, once they understand the rules of natural selection.

From the standpoint of naturalism and natural selection/evolution, I see why terror was and is necessary.
You need to be motivated to run and survive or kill your attacker, the fight or flight instinct.
As our triune brain system developed we gained a cerebral cortex and we could 'reason' at a much more nuanced level. We developed high levels of emotional intensity.
We could laugh/cry/empathise/love etc etc in very intense ways.
This was contrary to 'life in the caves,' so we used our new intelligence level to leave the caves and invent technologies to defeat the 'laws of the jungle.'

So again, OF COURSE, we added to embelished our god stories into religions, to attempt to make sense of the primal fears we inherited from natural selection and to explain our range of intensity of myriad emotions, which conflict, as they originate from a three brain system. The Rcomplex, the Limbic system and the Cortex. These three separate systems can work together but they do not merge harmoniously.

So OF COURSE, we seek superhero gods to take ultimate responsibility for our inner conflicts, our salvation and our fate after death. So we made gods to sate our primal fears and our fear of death/oblivion.

It's time to face our primal fears and realise that we have defeated all the scary creatures outside the caves and the only things that can make us extinct now are our own behaviors and natural disasters. So we must concentrate on those threats. We must rely on science and transhumanism to provide future lifespan longevity CHOICES and provide us with the ability to leave this planetary nest and reduce the possibility of extinction through natural disaster.
We must see that WE MADE GODS, they never existed, they just help many of us cope with life's terrors much better but they are illusions and no more than a crutch and something to scapegoat when things are bad.
We must see death as merely a harbinger and offer of change/termination. If your personal suffering in life has overwhelmed its wonderment to you then death/oblivion is a release from such. It's a friend, not a terror. I personally don't seek death or suicide and I would recommend against choosing it over living as I am convinced that If I did choose death then really cool stuff would happen afterward and I would f****** miss it.
Fear/bad/evil etc are nothing more than unpleasant human brain states that have no objective reality.
Bad stuff can happen to you, sure, and yes you can suffer and have a crap life but things can also change and get better and you can have some wonderful times, especially if we all work together if we all become humanists for the well-being of all.
In my opinion, this is where the solutions to our current global problems and individual suffering reside. We all have the solutions to each other's problems. Uniting together and combatting/converting nefarious b******* is the way to go.

We must finally learn to let go of the god scapegoat, take personal responsibility and 'boldy go where we have never gone before!'

hahaha! :lol: — L'éléphant

If we do ever achieve consciousness downloads or a human brain contained in a fully cybernetic body or a brain transplanted into a cloned body etc I wonder if all the theists will refuse to take part?
I think it's more likely that they will claim such technologies as 'inspired by god, all part of its cunning plan.' They might insist that the file extension be called

.godwantsitthisway

could be shortened to just

.god

which might stand for genetically organised download.
Okay, I might have taken my attempt at humour too far! :blush:
I got carried away because my career was teaching computing science and you laughed a wee bit at my .hahastillhere joke. :smile:

I have I heard about "uploading" the brain or the mind to a computer hundreds of times. It sounds totally ridiculous for someone

So, I believe that if someone originates a discussion regarding this subject, he should know well these things. I mean, esp. in here. Because, outside "in the world", one can hear a lot of nonsense — Alkis Piskas

But many individuals in the world of Artificial Intelligence, genetic engineering, cybernetics, electronic/quantum/biological computing, physics/chemistry/biology do think that transplanting the human brain into an alternate container to continue an individual consciousness IS plausible.
I agree that extracting an individual consciousness from an organic brain and 'downloading' it is a much harder problem as there is still so much we don't know about the workings of the brain but we will advance in our ability to emulate the brain.
How far do you think we could advance transhumanism in the next 1000000 years of scientific endeavor. If it's true that the first person to live to between 130 and 170 years is alive today then what do you personally think human lifespan may be, 1 million years from now.
I understand you may choose not to speculate but I do choose to speculate such as do many others, including those who

knows what a mind and a computer are and how they work. — Alkis Piskas

You and I have absorbed about 2500 years of scientific thought in a half lifetime — Haglund

That's a big claim friend. I would say I know a small slice of the past 2500 years of data/information garnished from the application of the scientific method and most of that is rather rudimentary. I defer to those in the current science community (cosmology in particular) and many other able people who are on the periphery of that group for any 'new or improved,' personal insight. I don't turn to theists for anything new as they rarely have any new thoughts to offer.
I am most attracted to string theory and I think it is the correct path but cannot yet offer itself as a convincing ToE. Cosmology does have some musings about the 'string landscape,' such as Mtheory but nothing demonstrable or verifiable yet. I see no reason for trying to fill such gaps with something as lazy-minded as the god posit.

Or maybe they show us how not to ruin the planet — Haglund

We already know how to do that in my opinion, it involves getting global politics correct.

But when the final explanation is there? — Haglund

Then we will understand why the god posit was wrong.

In what format are they thinking of uploading the mind? .docx? or .exe? .jpg? — L'éléphant

.hahastillhere

God will show himself. In time. — Haglund

I hope so, we can then throw it in jail forever for abandoning its responsibilities for so long.

But then, from where comes the stuff used in the explanation? — Haglund

I don't know, need more time. If you give your god more time to appear then give your fellow humans more time to figure out the origin story of the Universe. At least we can appear to each other, which is more than your puny gods seem able to do.

They won't show themselves. Yet... — Haglund

That is probably because they don't exist. The only eternal here is your eternal 'yet.'

to give a non scientific reason or meaning to life and the universe it's in. — Haglund

We don't need one imo.

the reason or meaning of it can't be explained scientifically. — Haglund

Yes it can, in time.

Yes.

Dawkins claims to be 99.9% certain that no gods exist. Then what about the 0.01%? To be certain that if they exist he didn't say he was sure 100%? So he can always say "You see? I told you! I was right! I said there was a chance!" — Haglund

Atheism is often described as the position that there is insufficient evidence for justifying belief in gods.
I am also 99.9% convinced that no gods exist but if I said I was 100% convinced then I would be as dogmatic as the pope. The 0.1% difference of conviction between Dawkins and the pope makes Dawkins the better thinker in my opinion.
Although in truth, I have no idea how many individual popes did or do 100% believe in the christian/catholic god.

Hi Universeness. To further our conversation: — Watchmaker

A pleasure to do so.....

I personally think that an Eternal, self existing Mind, that is the very essence of Being, is far more parsimonious — Watchmaker

I think many theists take this position. They reject the infinite regression or 'first cause' problem by claiming that god is 'outside of time,' and 'outside of causality.' I think this is just the same as saying 'you can NEVER approach the concept of god using a mere human mind, the scientific method, and empiricism.

My counter is that I personally, therefore, have no need for god, AT ALL.
I further suggest that the need for such an entity is down to human primal fears.
This is the basis of my atheism and I have so far, come across, no contrary concept which I have found compelling or can even challenge that position in any way I would find at least interesting apart from musings about 'projecting panpsychism,' to an emergence of a very distant future state that suggests that, if all the lifeforms in the Universe ever answer all questions and can collectivise/merge the consciousness of individuals in some way or form, then perhaps such a 'collective consciousness,' would satisfy the omnis and could be declared god, although I see no reason why we could not just as accurately label it 'Archie,' or 'Betty,' etc as god is such an overcooked label.

the mere fact that it happened, that consciousness and self awareness (identity) emerged from the cosmic soup, means that the materials needed already existed (which is obvious, right?) — Watchmaker

I think so yes. I don't think an early or first cause version of Tinkerbell sprinkled some 'consciousness fairy dust,' over one of the homo-sapiens wanderings about the Serengeti and named it Adam before transporting it to a pretty walled garden and giving it a set of do's and don'ts to adhere to.
Cosmic ingredients can do a great deal it seems, if you cook for 14 billion years and allow very large varieties in very large combinations. We don't need the supernatural when the natural is so super.

I can't see any reason as to why consciousness would have necessarily sparked unless it is eternally entwined in the fabric of space time, perhaps a space/time/consciousness continuum, if you will. — Watchmaker

Sounds reasonable to me, It has also been suggested that if connected/networked life within a Universe can as a totality, satisfy the omni criteria for godhood then what would it do then? Well, it might try to reproduce itself by seeding a new singularity and starting the whole process all over again so this Universe might be an attempt by a previous 'god,' or 'Archie,' or 'Betty,' emergence to reproduce, but this would not be any god as described in any current or ancient human religion.
For me however, it is the only god concept, that I would raise an eyebrow of every so slight interest towards and it would have nothing to do with preserving life after death. Technologically driven transhumanism is the only real hope for significant lifespan longevity in my opinion.

So then the solution to this would be individual stalls with toilets, sinks, mirrors, etc. But this also has an economic impact as well. — Paulm12

Yep, I think that's the suggested solution but you still have the concern of male sexual predators/ drunk men/men or boys who dare each other to......etc Men (maybe not exclusively men but mostly) who will hang out in the communal area where the 'stalls' are and 'pester'/try to 'chat up' women who transit the same space. So you would probably need CCTV in this communal area or some sort of security.