What Evidence Would Be Enough?

Which came first, the belief or the believer? Evidence for god would be some universal truth, however, the closest proximities to that are the core shamanistic principles and practices common throughout all corners of the world, developed over the millennia by their utility. Nobody had ever heard of Yahweh outside the near east, which begs a question.

Did your belief in god lead you to accept nature as evidence, or did nature lead you to conclude there is a god? If you believed first in god, you’ve fallen victim to the explainers. How many of you as a child, took a walk in the forest and thought, wow, this pinecone is evidence for god, without first being influenced that direction?

“In our standard view of things, consciousness exists only in the brains of highly evolved organisms, and hence consciousness exists only in a tiny part of the universe and only in very recent history. According to panpsychism, in contrast, consciousness pervades the universe and is a fundamental feature of it. This doesn’t mean that literally everything is conscious. The basic commitment is that the fundamental constituents of reality—perhaps electrons and quarks[hence earth]have incredibly simple forms of experience”—Scientific American

Most likely consciousness is not a fundamental feature of the universe, but universe is a fundamental feature of consciousness, not the other way around. It is such a fundamental part of the whole, you can’t separately identify matter from consciousness.