Watch the video or don't watch it. I found it thoroughly entertaining and I very much enjoyed it.
Best Christopher Hitchens Moments on Religion and God

These days the materialistic world view is popular. This means that many believe that everything that exists is matter/energy, where matter is just a compact form of energy, and time and space for that matter/energy to bounce around in. Not only in the academic and philosophical world is this a prevailing cosmological principle, but also in large segments of the population in "intellectually developed" countries. In academic and philosophical circles, I have noticed that a more suitable term is used: physicalism. This is because it is also alleged to exist relations between matter, such as gravity, the electromagnetic force etc.

The phenomenon of "consciousness" is thus considered as a product or feature of this matter. Discussions have been ongoing for centuries if not millennia, of the consciousness' proper relation to the matter/the physical world. In the context of physical thinking, many believe that consciousness and physical events are the same thing(1), while others believe that there are different aspects of the same thing(2).

For example: "consciousness is the brain"(1) and "the brain is the brain and the consciousness"(2). But, and here I object, the absolute majority that hold this position also believe that the seemingly "dead" objects, such as stones, the sun and the individual electrons, do not possess consciousness. This is motivated by something like the need for an enormous complexity, such as the brain, for a consciousness to occur.

Let me explain why this position with necessity is false and why physicalism in general cannot be true from a metaphysical perspective, including a short note about why panpsychic hypotheses tend to fail and why "god" is a result of this. Lastly, I will show you why some common arguments against the existence of God are pointless.

Time, space and energy
According to physical theories in general, consciousness is a product, or an essence, of and in the brain. I'm not going to endeavor to distinguish the different types of physicalism.

If physicalism is true, everything is energy (which is the same thing as matter), time, space, and the relations between these phenomena, in which consciousness is just a byproduct of this cosmological puzzle. But if consciousness is a product of, or in essence is, these things, ought not consciousness exist inherently in every single thing? In every hour, in every smallest "part" of energy, in every part of space? Perhaps the concept of time is difficult to interpret in this context, when it can be said to be only a good metaphor/model for how energy behaves in space.

If we, in theory, break down matter to the smallest level, i.e., we reach the level where there is pure energy, and then break down the energy to the smallest level, what will we find?
Even if the question cannot be answered, assume that we get "minimum-potential-energy quanta", let's call it Q. Does it not seem logical, that if there is consciousness in say 10^1299 Q that bounce jointly in a certain way and at the same time have a lot of different relations to each other (e.g., the brain), that there is also consciousness in every Q? And/or, for that matter, in every relation between the Q?

Complexity
Some argue that it is not the case, that consciousness is in everything (or is everything, for that matter) physical, because the brain is so incredibly complex. This is, to my knowledge, the only counter-argument to panpsychism. I.e., that consciousness results from the enormous complexity.

Let us analyze what is actually being said.

What is complexity? Complexity is an approach to how different elements behave in a larger system. For example, you could say that computers are very complex, since they depend on so many different elements and parts of them to work. But why do we not think stones are as complex?

Perhaps we should, and the following is why: approaches to complexity can only be defined by humans. If you think that system X is complex, it is because you do not (easily) form an idea of how it works. But you can easily get the idea of how a stone works. It is just there and it does nothing. The problem is that the stone may be just as complex as the computer. The stone may even consist of more 'energy quanta', Q, than the computer that works in a certain way, because the stone must function absolutely the way it actually does, in order for it to work the way it does. Is becoming complex to grasp the concept of complexity!? For example, take away 17Q of the stone, and the stone is no longer the stone it once was. With this metaphor, we quickly realize that the stone is very complex. And this applies to everything. Even a small measly Q is infinitely “complex”, since it has be exactly as it is, to be as it is. Thus, the term "complexity" is completely meaningless from an ontological perspective, and should rather be regarded as a convenient term for everyday situations, but lose value in philosophical discussions.

However, I would guess that some disagree with something along the following line: "But grains of sand, two cups air, electrons or Q-quanta can not be aware - they're so small". Others might point out that energy must bounce in a certain way, such as the right part of the brain for consciousness to occur.

To help conceive my lines of thought, compare Q with bouncy balls. Suppose I have a very large room (e.g., 18^99 billion km^3) where I have a Q, bouncy balls, which bounce around, randomly or not. I add more bouncing balls, more and more, in anticipation that their bouncing will result in a consciousness, in the total absence of the consciousness phenomenon. The question inevitably presents itself: why would it, if the phenomenon of consciousness does not exist in every bouncing ball?

Consciousness
So, are the bouncing balls conscious? And just as before with energy quanta and Q, is the smallest possible part of "space", say S, conscious? And is the smallest possible portion of time, let's call it T, conscious? Is 3.5m^3 conscious? Is 72.7 hours a conscious entity? Is 3.5 m^3 and 72.7 hours together conscious as an entity?

To make my argument clearer, I have to explain what consciousness is. So, what is consciousness?

First of all, what is language? Because when I say consciousness, I try to communicate on an internal understanding that I possess in my own consciousness. If we could communicate telepathically, the word consciousness would be meaningless, just as language itself, because I would just transfer my understanding of the term consciousness, rather than the utterance of the word itself. The word is, and words in general are, meant to make the person I speak to aware of what is to resemble my understanding as well as possible.

Unlike the modern, everyday use of the word, it is my opinion that you are also aware when you sleep. When you sleep, you are (usually) conscious of silence, blackness, dreams, thoughts, and you have a different perception of time and/or forget much of what you dreamt during the night. But you are still conscious. So, if I for an example would end up in a coma for 40 years and then wake up, it would be impossible for me to assert with truth that I had been out of consciousness for 40 years, or at all, since I had simply forgotten what had happened, and had a different perception of time.

This is where it gets tricky. To get a better understanding of what I mean by consciousness, ask yourself the following question: what would the condition of all existence be, if the phenomenon of consciousness did not exist?

This is a recursive question, and highly unconventional as an argument, but I ask the question anyway. Can it be answered? The understanding that should come to you, when you ask yourself this question, is what I'm trying to communicate further with my language. I do not know if this has to be understood as a fundamentistic truth or not. I believe, however, that the answer is, with necessity: the case can not be so, that the phenomenon of consciousness does not exist. Monism is the answer, and consciousness is its substance.

Blackness/lightness, silence/sounds, shapes, smells, sensations, concepts etc., are not solely dependent on consciousness, they exist only because, and in the sense, that you (mind subject) are aware of them. Since time is just a sensation that things are changing, space only the idea of area, and energy/matter is only lightness/darkness plus some sensations in a specific, seemingly, programmed behavior, all the essences of physical theories that are considered to be of ontological value just as much worth as a temporary thought. There is no physical existence, there is only an idea of a ?physical existence. Thus, bouncing balls, Q, and T and R, are just ideas, a platform in a conscious process, and cannot be considered to create consciousness, when they are just "thoughts" inside a consciousness.

So, what creates consciousness? In short: nothing, or more accurately, consciousness. "Creates" is a poor choice of word, since consciousness with necessity is. The beginning of all existence is the same as the eternity of all existence, because existence itself is just a consciousness, a being in the thought.


"God" and solipsism
One reasonable idea is that before anything else, there was, is and always will be a consciousness. This consciousness is not dependent on anything "outside" itself, because everything that is, is inside it, and is it. I.e., that consciousness is not resting on a rock or is locked in an X-dimensional space. It is completely independent of all that it can imagine, for example, our ideas about space and time. Thus it has an infinite capacity for intelligence, memory, multitasking, speed etc., because these things plainly are, in its absolute form, thoughts, which this consciousness has total control over.

A potential supplementary question might be: If everything is just a consciousness, it means 'I' am the only consciousness? Yes and no, you and I both belong to the only consciousness, just as we all do, as we are only mini-consciousnesses, or infinitely small 'sub-consciousness' within the first consciousness. But how do you know that you yourself are not the first consciousnesses? The logic that brings us to this conclusion is universal, but to know that you yourself are not the first consciousness, you must experience a lack of total control. A quick empirical experiments should settle the question: Test by merely wanting it to fly off to Jupiter as Peter Pan, while you breathe sausage smelling beer out of your ears. If it does not work, you have your answer. And if it works, please contact me!

Common arguments against the existence of god
There are many arguments against the existence of God (where the term god, of course, is not linked to any specific religion), but nothing I have ever encountered is particularly relevant. To list a few, taken from the Wikipedia page about the existence of God:

The omnipotence paradox. Since God is omnipotent, can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? Can he create another god who is more omnipotent than himself? These questions have nothing to do with God. They concern definition of omnipotence. The answer to both questions is "No" - if he is as powerful as it is logically possible to be, nothing can be more omnipotent, thus he cannot create anything that is more omnipotent - not any object or another god. This applies to the all-knowing problem as well. Thus, it does not affect the existence of God, it only affects how you have to look at his attributes.

God's complexity. Pointless argument, read about complexity above.

Occam's razor. A practical tool has no place in metaphysical discussions. I would like to point out that Occam's razor is a very inappropriate argument in theoretical discussions, as it is a practical tool in all its essence. E.g., it is something you use when you want to know why the cheese in the fridge has mold: 1. Has it been there too long, or 2. Did a Martian visit Earth and squirted mold into it? One should not, in theory, rule out option 2 before the matter has been investigated further, but Occam's razor -> 1 for everyday practical reasons.

These are the arguments that seem to be taken most seriously, which is why I chose to respond to them here.

Perhaps now the reader thinks: Okay, consciousness is all there is, but why are we in a seemingly physical universe, on the planet Earth in 2011? Why do we die? Why is the world so cruel, when the first consciousness had all the potential to only create good? Why do we not have minds that automatically connect us with the first consciousness, which could comfort us when we are sad or the like?

While these questions are perfectly relevant, I'm afraid this post would get too lengthy trying to answer them. But let me quickly note that with eternity as a platform, it is reasonable for the sub-consciousnesses, that the first consciousness created inside itself, to have full freedom to express themselves with, and that they need "training" to acquire wisdom.