All I see here are a bunch of what-ifs, what-abouts, misinterpretations of the scientific method, and the use of the words of someone who was, without a doubt, a genius, but who lived in the 17th/18th century and whose work has been superseded. That's no fault of his, and that work is still good enough for space navigation in our solar system, which shows how good his physics was. But it's classical and basic physics and can't cope with things traveling at or near the speed of light, , the expansion of the universe, and certainly doesn't handle quantum mechanics. He didn't even know how the sun worked. You can make Newton's laws fit all you want to how you think the brain works and consciousness, but it's all complete speculation.
How any of this even attempts to provide evidence for a god or some deity is beyond me. To me, you've fallen into this trap of thinking the universe was created for you, for us, rather than we are a result of the universe. It's how we thought centuries ago, i.e., the universe exists for us, and unfortunately, some folk still have that egotistical belief today - we're here because a god made us, damn the evidence, let's try to fit everything into our way of thinking. How about trying something different? Let the evidence lead you, not your beliefs.
How any of this even attempts to provide evidence for a god or some deity is beyond me. To me, you've fallen into this trap of thinking the universe was created for you, for us, rather than we are a result of the universe. It's how we thought centuries ago, i.e., the universe exists for us, and unfortunately, some folk still have that egotistical belief today - we're here because a god made us, damn the evidence, let's try to fit everything into our way of thinking. How about trying something different? Let the evidence lead you, not your beliefs.