It is more rational to believe humanity is a random by-product of this universe than created by God.

I apologise for skipping over a lot of stuff that you brought up in round one. I don't mean to be rude, and it's certainly not that I don't have things to say on those subjects... but since my goal really is to convince you, rather than to win the debate I'm going to concentrate on the direction which I think will be most productive in persuading you to see things slightly differently.You said:"In the not terribly brilliant film, Transcendence, it poses the question that if a human mind could be uploaded to a computer which then assumed that person's consciousness - is it still that same person? Or is it just a jolly clever imitation? And critically, how would you prove it!?"What I'm about to say is something that I am 100% convinced of and I know that it sounds like a crazy belief at first; so much so, in fact, that I suspect that this very notion is exactly what drives reasonable people away from rational understanding and into the waiting arms of the apparantly comforting belief that Theism extols.I absolutely believe that if you designed a sufficiently complex computer program with the correct inputs, you could create something that would be indistinguishable from me. Let me qualify that just a tiny bit: physics' Heisenberg's uncertainty principle combined with mathematics' Chaos Theory means that you couldn't do this to the degree necessary for my analogue to be making all of the same decisions at the same time as me, I dont mean a copy in that sense... but I do mean that you'd have an entity with as much knowledge, experience, ability to learn and ability to communicate as me... it would behave similarly to me and, that entity would absolutely be self-aware. Morally, hurting such an entity would be (in my book) of an equal severity as hurting a human being. How would you test the difference? Would there be any difference? What quality do you think would be missing? You can't call it "independent rational thought" because this machine would certainly be capable of that... and of self-awareness... that is to say that it could react to external stimuli... AND it could react to its internal stimuli! There you go... that's it, in a nutshell... there's no magic!Indeed, it is reasonably easy to prove that either this astonishing claim is true or something akin to Cartesian dualism must be. There really are only two choices.If consciousness is natural, it follows that it is in principle understandable and, in principle, reproducable. Indeed, it absolutely follows as a logical necessity that if consciousness is an emergent property of a chaotic (relating to the Mathematical Chaos Theory) collection of neurons then it is possible to reproduce this in a sufficiently complex computer program.The only room for a supernatural explanation is if at some point there is a "decision" being made that is not coming from the physicality of the brain. This idea, I suggest, is not logical to accept with no evidence. I'm not going to try to prove it wrong, but I think that a burden of proof is necessarily upon anybody who would believe this if they wish to claim to be acting and believing rationally. I will look again, now, at the alternative view:What there is; all there is, is a set of predictable neurons. Somehow, a "you" emerges. What!? How!? What AM I? What is this SENSATION? How can "I" sense anything at all... if all I am is a complex set of logic gates, how come I feel like a "me"?It's a tough one to answer... it's a really, really tough one to give a satisfying answer to. I get that, I really do... I still think that I can convince you to change your mind, though! Do you accept that there is no solution to hard solipsism? Could we be a brain in a vat? I don't hold the belief that I am, nor do I hold the belief that I'm not... I don't think that I can ever prove that I am; I don't think that I can ever prove that I'm not. I simply don't care about that idea! I brush myself down and focus on getting on with my life on the assumption that I am not a brain in a vat... and, of course, if I come across a situation where I would have been better prepared had I believed that I was a brain in a vat, I would have been wrong about the idea that I could never prove that I wasn't because the very problem would represent evidence! But I'm sure enough that this isn't going to happen that I don't let it bother me.But what could be the answer to this question, "how come I feel like me"? However clever a solution is proposed, won't it always fail at the point where we declare "and that's how you think this thought"? Surely the challenge "and that's how WHO thinks this thought?" will, like a child asking an infinite string of "why"s, be possible to ask? Yes, yes it would... and that's why the question (and the way of thinking about what consciousness is) is inherently wrong. We need to see things a different way, one that does not require a Cartesian Theater and an infinite regress of homunculi!Well, perhaps we see a glimpse of the answer in this apparently unsolvable dilemma... maybe, just maybe, there is no I in that sense... there is no homunculus... there is no "consciousness" in the way that question implies it. Maybe we're looking at things the wrong way.Maybe we are not in control of what we think; that's only an illusion... the "I" in self-awareness is just that, an observer... a witness. I say that this is exactly the truth. We have the illusion that we can control our thoughts... indeed, we are aware of thoughts going in feedback mechanisms within our own brain. But really, as this process is unfolding in our brain, there is no "us" to observe the process... we are the process (in one specific sense of I, us or we).You may consider it a trivial parlour trick when I say to you "whatever you do, don't think about elephants" but I suggest that this reveals something important about the brain. Notice that beyond the very trivial sense in which the "reading aparatus" in your brain made elephant-shaped brainwaves (sorry for the sloppy language, I hope you know what I mean), you could not *stop* thinking about elephants immediately afterwards. Maybe you saw one washing itself with its trunk. Now that you've thought about this proposition, and have not only thought about elephants but now you've thought about your thinking about elephants (you've noticed that you were thinking about elephants - and that is what I see is the key to consciousness)... Now, right now, or as soon as you can... stop thinking about elephants. I won't repeat the word again from here on in but you'll be noticing thoughts related to them bubbling into your conscious awareness for some time now, and it's entirely beyond your control to stop them coming.Yes, I just played a parlour trick that's barely more clever than the original one... I have tricked you; I have taken control of your mind, to a degree... now, whilst it's obvious that this is just a trick, I want you to think about how or why I was able to do so... and how this really throws into doubt the idea that your conscious mind is in control of your thoughts. Your self-awareness is not in control of yourself. Indeed, put like that, how could it be!? Your self-awareness is only a witness to yourself.Putting the logical opposite of this idea, we can see the infinite homunculi queing up: your self-awareness is in control of your self. That must be a fallacious proposition. Your self-awareness must follow after the event of your self. Your "self" is easy enough to see as a collection of firing neurons, very physical... it's this self awareness that still seems to defy explanation. WHAT is aware? It's sort of trite, but my answer is you are aware."clever imitation of independent rational thought", you once said. I charge that could be no such thing. What distinguishes an imitation of independent rational thought and real independent rational thought? You yourself asked "[is] it still that same person? Or is it just a jolly clever imitation? And critically, how would you prove it!?" Indeed. You know that you couldn't prove it, so you know that consciousness is not magic. You know that natural processes can make something that behaves identically to you (including learning), you just don't want to have to deal with the consequences of what that implies that you are!What my brain does is have independent rational thoughts... its just that there is no magic "I" in control of them. To have independent rational thoughts is a competence that evolution has been bestowed on the collection of neurons between my ears. There is no "you" other than the "impersonal unaware you" that is your subconscious mind thinking about things in ways that "self-aware you" can't control... such as those things you're not supposed to be thinking about. Your subconscious still was, because you know what I'm referring to! As life provides other distractions, there just won't be room for such thoughts in the myriad of more important ideas that are bubbling up into your conscious arena... Now, where's the you? Did you decide to stop thinking about an idea that I'd asked you to stop thinking about? Where did that decision happen? When did that decision happen? Was it perhaps induced in your mind when you read my words "don't think about"? I can put ideas into your head but you cannot!Obviously you can have original thoughts, that's not what I'm saying... but unlike Baron Munchausen, you cannot pull yourself out of the swamp by your own hair! You *have* thoughts but you cannot decide to think something! You just did, to prove me wrong, I'm sure.. you thought about fairies, perhaps... whatever it was, was it your conscious mind that selected that topic? I think not! That exposes the illusion that is driving you to believe in the supernatural.Your conscious mind is whatever story your brain is currently obsessed by.There is no "you the homunculus". There is no evidence of anything supernatural. Theres no reason to believe anything supernatural!