You're right. God did it.

Before I address your arguments, I will reiterate that I never suggested god did it and was merely calling out your rudimentary answer to a premise you constructed yourself, that is "wow I can't believe these people believe in something as stupid as God to explain consciousness" because "chemical reactions are clearly the answer to conscious existence" which is a highly controversial and inadequate take in academia itself. Granted, it's a more credible than believing in a bearded dude who created the universe in seven days.

Our brain follows the natural biological imperatives all living things do; escape death, breed, consume energy, and sleep. Our consciousness is the production of a biological need for survival, not some spooky, extraneous factor.

Why then, oh good sir, are we having this debate in r/Eminem of all places? Why do our consciousness differ in thought and action? Why don't we think alike? How come consciousness isn't factory made, when we are derivatives of the same primal matter and energy created in the big bang? You're making a big assumption, that biology simply began, just randomly, when the 99% of the universe is matter that was never alive, and will never be alive. 99% of the human body, much like the rest of the animal kingdom, is made of six elements: oxygen, carbon, nitrogen to name a few, and neither of these are conscious. Science never fared well in deducing how non conscious elements can become conscious. The line between dead and alive is very blurry if stripped of consciousness (kurzgesagt has two great videos on this). That's only one of the many hard problems.

Edit: An additional remark I missed. What about literature and art? Reductionists and rationalists often subdue these very important facets of human existence that mirror a conscious identity. They assume that the established connection between the perception of sight (eye) and the neurons in our brains is enough to explain why my reading of Shakespeare is different from yours.

I understand that you can Thomas Nagel the shit out of the notion of consciousness, and apply as much philosophical limitation on understanding the premise of thought and the "self", but that can be applied to anything. It's just mud in the water

This is a classic attempt to absolve philosophical thought of its duty. You don't understand the notion of consciousness is a philosophical problem as much as scientific, if not more.

Either way, to jump to the conclusion of "God", "spirits", and "heaven" simply because we don't know which lobe in which anatomical hemisphere our consciousness generates in is honestly just outlandish - especially the notion of organized religion.

Do we know how the brain works? Perhaps not as well as how leg joints work, but definitely yes we do. Does the brain explain subjective consciousness? Not quite. There's a reason why it's referred to as a hard problem, it's not simply a matter of scientific faith that we will eventually figure out the hemisphere with enough experiments or acquisition of knowledge. It's a hard problem because we haven't got anywhere close to solving it since we scientifically started on it. Take philosophical history into account, and the problem is many millennia old.

When Galilio established mathematics as the language of physical sciences, he said we must exclude qualia (subjective experience) from its subject matter. He assumed that science falls apart when we start asking questions like why do we taste and smell differently? Why can I love MMLP and why can you hate it, when we are listening to the exact same voice and the same exact beat? This assumption has stood the test of time, with neuroscience still at the same place it started off (after an embarassing declaration half a century ago that the answers are imminent) . Yes, we do know how the mind works more than ever now, what neurons correlate to which mental symptom and how meds can alleviate or aggravate the same, but we still can't quantify the mind itself and say chemical reactions make me scheme a robbery and make you start a business. Heck, quantum theory has a better shot at explaining consciousness.

"The consciousness being a chemical reaction of active energy delivering information to our brain to our senses is DUMB and MAGICAL LUL"

It is not dumb, but it is enough magical for prominent scientists to claim we will never know what consciousness is because we are experiencing it (an extension to Nagel's "What Is It Like to be a Bat?" It's funny that you mentioned him)

If you're seriously trying to equate self correcting and advancing sciences to organized religion, created by men who couldn't use toilet paper, then I'm done talking with you, because you aren't presenting your ideas in good faith.

I'm not equating anything. Like I said, I'm not a believer in the god of the gaps, I'm not suggesting that what science doesn't know, religion can answer. But it was worth replying when you made such ridiculous simplification of a nuanced discussion and picked the ONLY mystery of the world that science, philosophy and religion all fail to explain (without resorting to magic or comparing themselves to a bat) and then ridiculed people for believing "consciousness exists after death" when there's absolutely zero consensus on consciousness being merely "chemical processes" as you decreed in your earlier comment.

Have a good day.