gib,
Godlike in what respects?
I don’t believe in the Biblical god either, based on the 6 day creation theory.
I think the world is still being created, as it evolves. A natural progression.
Please elaborate. 
-In being the ultimate consciousness.
-In being the sustainer of its own existence and the creator of our individual subjective realities.
-In being omnipotent (in that it controls everything, not that it can violate the laws of physics)
-In being omniscient (all knowledge that can be had, is had by it - I’m not sure I can say that it knows all there is to know).
-In being omnibenevalent (not that it looks out for our best interests, but that when we suffer, it suffers too).
As you see, a lot of these have to be understood in a certain sense, but there you go.
I’ve got a whole theory behind this one, and everytime this question is asked, I find the arguments become exhausting. So I won’t go into any great detail.
I believe that the fundamental “stuff” of the universe has to be consciousness. I’ve come to the conclusion that consciousness is the only thing that solves the “problem of reductionism” as I call it - the problem of finding an ultimate “thing” to which everything reduces to and whose own nature doesn’t come into question (i.e. it explains its own existence). String Theorists think they’ve found it, but I can still ask “What is a vibrating string? How did they come to exist? What are they made of?”
So everything we perceive and experience can be reduced to perceptions and experiences. I also posit that everything beyond our minds takes a form inconceivable to us (this is Kant). So then I take advantage of this fact by positing more mental experiences beyond our minds (more mind) whose qualitative “feel” is inconceivable. They “flow” (I’ve got a special meaning for the word “flow” here) into our mind by metamorphasizing into our sensory experiences.
That’s it in a nutshell.
I really don’t want to elaborate on it any more than that. I’m writing a website that explains my views in detail. If you want, I can send you an email when it’s finished.
Existence is ,only,the necessity of the reality of things taking place. The sun can not refuse to shine. You are anthropomorphizing the universe by giving it a consciousness,that can only be considered God.This is a God you have created,one you can not know,(one who does’nt want you to know him,if he exists). pantheism=reality=atheism=nihilsim=truth=necessity.
gib,
One grain of 100% sugar is just as pure as is all the 100% sugar in a 50 lb. bag.
I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that consciousness is consciousness where ever it may exist? I don’t think that consciousness is just one thing though - I think there are an infinite variety of forms consciousness can come in. Again, I say that consciousness is not so much an awareness of reality as it is a system of experiences, and there is no limit on the qualia that characterizes those experiences. I think this gets at F.W.Nietzsche’s point as well. Two conscious beings with radically different qualia characterizing their experiences can be more different from each other than a human is from a rock. Putting that another way, a rock is more anthropomorphic than the God I take the universe to be.
gib,
No. All I am saying is that you appear to be making the philosophic error of confusing absolutes (already done, complete, finished, unalterable) with progressions (unfinished, incomplete, alterable).
Sorry, I still don’t understand. What’s the absolute and what’s the progression in this case?
This appeared to me as well. Nice job pointing it out in this way. I’ll have more to say later.
Great word to describe what seems to be going on here.
an·thro·po·mor·phic /ˌænθrəpəˈmɔrfɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[an-thruh-puh-mawr-fik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
- ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, esp. to a deity.
If the universe is everything there is, it cannot be outside itself. It is not a separate conscious/sentient being. I was going to say more but I think I’ll end up coming back to that point. I just wish I could word it better. Sorry… 
I don’t think so either. I’m a monist.
gib,
Progression–all matter, including us, evolves, hence moves (Heraclitus). Absolutism–nothing evolves, hence no motion ( Zeno, Parmenides). You can’t have it both ways. You could see consciousness as an epiphenomenon (the whole is more than the sum of its parts). But to see it as part of anything static is to negate an expanding universe. That each of us and everything else that exists may be part of a whole doesn’t imply stasis. Stasis is implied in arguments for an unchanging diety.
I don’t necessarily think of God as unchanging. Even if I didn’t associate the universe with the concept of a god-like consciousness, whatever label you want to slap on it (even “the universe”) would have to have a transient identity.
We can label the universe or give it an identity. But it ain’t conscious.
Yes it is! 
No it is not. Humans acquired consciousness late in the game.It is our best weapon,but still a byproduct,an epiphenomenon,and most of all a reaction to our own existence.It is a degraded,faulty,misleading ,and inferior rendering of the world outside ourselves. If there were a god,why would he want such a thing. An omnipotent god would be a pure actor/creator,with NO second thoughts.
Well, that’s one view. I just don’t agree.
Yes, I agree with this, but this is all the more reason to suppose the true form of the universe is a god-like being. What we see the universe to be is a material system occupying space and changing through time. If this is a distortion, then the least we must say is that the true universe is something other than this.
I don’t know. Supposing he “wants” anything (wanting is a human experience), he’d have his reason, and I’m too feeble minded to understand his intentions. Maybe we aren’t even central to his objectives.
gib,
Your use of the word “true” is an absolutist assumption.