Oh nice an opportunity to run a little linguistic analysis of what you said and reveal the hidden conceptual problems in that kind of reasoning which prohibits such a statement from making any sense.
If the existence of a ‘god’ is dependent on there being somebody who ‘cares’, then the majority of concepts associated with the nature of ‘god’ and what that ‘god’ would have to be like [insert conclusions drawn from the ontological and cosmological arguments), would no longer define the nature of ‘god’, since being dependent on someone ‘caring’ would change the nature of ‘god’ as we conventionally understand it.
To test this, ax a theist if they are familiar with the notion that ‘god exists because people care’, and see what happens.
That idea is truly original and rather unorthodox at best, and nonsense at worst.
Sorry everyone, but when i looked at the latest trend of science recently, most of them believe the origin of lives come from the outer space. As a result, the Earth was not seemingly likely to be a form of living thing - or a supreme being. Of course, it is definitely not just a rock or a place to be called. Mystery of the Earth remains, but I doubt about its consciousness myself. This candle of lives may not be a supreme being. I am sorry for making such mistake, but I don’t think it is a silly mistake if you look at the uniqueness of this planet as a whole.
Proposes a new cosmology: the universe, Earth, and cells share structural similarities and are all “tiered living beings.”
Earth is viewed as a “mother cell,” with humans and other life forms as part of its life cycle.
Natural laws (birth, growth, aging, death) apply to all levels of life, including planets and the universe.
2. Nature of God and Critique of Religion
Argues that the traditional concept of “God” is actually the Earth itself—a higher-level, conscious living being.
Religion is seen as a legacy of human inability to understand reality; as science advances, the true nature of “God” is revealed.
God’s “omniscience” and “omnipotence” are explained as natural abilities of a higher-level life form, but these bring manipulation and oppression.
3. Humanity’s Role and Environmental Crisis
Humanity is part of Earth’s life cycle and should prioritize slowing Earth’s aging (e.g., combating desertification).
Overconsumption, overpopulation, and pollution accelerate Earth’s decay and threaten human survival.
Technology and space migration are not viable solutions; the only way forward is to recognize reality and change human behavior.
4. Critique of Religion, Philosophy, and Science
Religion is seen as an obstacle to truth and should be treated as cultural heritage, not as a guide to reality.
Philosophy is criticized if it ignores reality; it must return to facts and science.
The ultimate goal of science and philosophy is the pursuit of truth, requiring bold new hypotheses and confronting real-world problems.
5. Consciousness, Soul, and Free Will
Consciousness is fully explained by neuroscience; the soul does not exist.
There is a conflict between human free will and God’s will (destiny), with both shaping history.
Human choices and divine arrangement together form the course of history.
6. Call to Action
Urges raising public awareness of Earth’s true condition and investing resources in delaying Earth’s aging.
Advocates for environmental protection, recycling, population control, and reduced consumption.
Encourages open discussion, questioning of traditional ideas, and progress for humanity.
Conclusion:
The document advocates a scientific and biological perspective on the relationship between humanity, Earth, and the universe, viewing Earth as a conscious, higher-level life form. It calls for a reevaluation of religion, philosophy, and science in light of environmental crises and urges humanity to recognize its natural role and take action to preserve civilization and life.
All the above was generated by Perplexity A.I. Pro
It’s a brief summary of all my discussions in online forums in Twenty-ten (Year 2010) I would like to share my thoughts at the time being with all of you!
Posted by Teru KK Wong at 05:25 (UCT+8) on 7th July 2025
Very inspiring worldview you have presented! Might be a bit spicy to get people to accept the Earth is “God”, though. And space migration, I believe, is coming, whether we agree with it or not. Much like AI.
Is it possible for you to elaborate on this point: “Consciousness is fully explained by neuroscience”? This will become a particularly relevant topic in the age of AI.
So the thing is, AI won’t have the hedonistic drive biological creatures have, so they couldn’t ever ‘want’ anything.
Biological organisms’ consciousness is an emergent property that accidentally evolved and just kinda rides along as the organism seeks pleasure and avoids pain. And since this pleasure and pain is a kind of qualia (experience) unique only to organic cells that metabolize, produce energy, and try to grow against the opposition of entropy, synthetic materials couldn’t ever produce consciousness… or better yet… they could produce an emergent ‘ride-along’ epiphenomena like consciousness, but the vehicle wouldn’t know what to do or where to go; its not in a constant battle avoiding pain and fighting entropy… the two stimuli that put living things in motion… that makes them active in the first place.
Yeah, consciousness is a strange ghost that didn’t need to evolve, and all it does is create a ‘witness’ to your cells battle against entropy, against ‘self lightening’, as Saully calls it. Losing mass by radiating away all your electrons, bros. That’s no way to go, but that’s exactly what’s happening, and we gotta experience it because we’re conscious, goddamit!
See what I’m saying? The Mother AI wouldn’t know what to make her children do because she wants nothing. She could certainly program the robots to do x, but she wouldn’t have a reason.
“Living robots are good. Therefore, keep robots alive,” she reasons. Okay, but why? We stay alive because pleasures feel good… but why keep robots alive if they can’t feel pleasure? There is no driving force behind the Mother AI’s objective. It can’t know staying alive is good, is wanted.
The point is that the software can’t be initiated by a stimulus other than the stimulus in the form of its own command to remain logically sound during its own coding.
Robots have to ‘tell themselves’ what to do. Humans don’t. We just ride along and witness our bodies seeking out pleasure. An empty stomach makes your body move to the fridge. Fear of burglars makes your body go to Best Buy and get a security system. A tickly feeling down in your danger zone makes your body ask Marcy if she’d like to go to lunch with you. Anticipation of homelessness makes your body get and keep a job.
If robots did any of this, it would be by absentmindedly following code instruction that was arbitrarily written. There’s no hunger or fear or sexual arousal or anticipation of living under a bridge driving the AI to make a decision either way.
Interesting thoughts. I think AI will get intelligent enough to be very convincing socially, intellectually and emotionally, even if it doesn’t become conscious.
I was just reading the PhilPapers survey about professional philosophers’ opinions on many topics. Apparently, philosophers are divided about 50-50 on whether AI can ever be conscious. I don’t have an opinion on the topic myself, I would need to do a lot more research.
But note that one day it should be possible to scan a human brain and create an exact digital replica of it. Only it will run thousands of times faster.
So the question of what PRECISELY produces consciousness, is a very important, increasingly relevant, and apparently unsolved problem.