So it "amuses" you that I haven't explained consciousness or existence itself (why there's something rather than nothing). No one who's ever lived yet has explained either of them, so I'm in good company, and you're easily amused.
Using science (emergence) to naturalize consciousness and morality comes much closer to an explanation than the theist's self-serving, child-like appeal to personification. Saying that God did it by a miracle is what explains nothing. Emergence in nature, by complexification and evolution, is real and palpable.
I exchange monotheism for pantheism since the latter falls out of scientific objectification, whereas theism is archaic.
Hart's classical theism posits a God of the philosophers, which amounts to atheism. See my other recent dialogue with Matthew on objectifying God:
