I don’t believe it because I wish it. I believe it because I can’t imagine why matter should form into life and become conscious without God. And I don’t wish to meet you. You are quite enough in this medium. Lol

And what do you know about truth?

I don’t have to opt for the pleasure machine. I’m not a miserable lout. Lol

You refuse to try. You can always try. I’m not asking you to try, though. I couldn’t care less about assholes, God bless them! Lol

It depends what you mean by “reasonable”. I believe it is reasonable to believe something that improves your life. If being a skeptic improves your life, then I say it is reasonable for you. However, you seem like a miserable lout.

I have yet to pin you down on any belief, as you refuse to give one. If or once you do, then I’m sure I can show it is a matter of faith. If the jury’s out for you, then I’m afraid you will be waiting till after the day you die, as we must all remain ignorant of the cause of the Big Bang, assuming even that remains true. I believe in God because this belief guides my life into a better, happier one. I know this from having experienced being a staunch atheist for 13+ years.

Whoah! Whoa! I NEVER argued that there were sound God proofs or irrefutable religious arguments. I hold that religious belief is a matter of faith, but it cannot be falsified. I also hold that internally consistent mathematical “theories” may not refer to anything in reality either, and believing in them is just misplaced faith in tautological mathematics.

What I am saying about String “Theory” and M “Theory” is that they are no better than me saying there is a universe where I am king of the world. My language of English makes this possible. The language of mathematics (which is pure tautology) makes it possible for physicists to say there are 11 dimensions.

Furthermore, internal consistency in mathematics may not refer to anything in reality. M theory may be mathematical fantasy.

No. They are unprovable, untestable hypotheses. There are no CONCEIVABLE experiments to test their validity. This was not the case with the Higgs Boson.

Perhaps you are not familiar with philosophers’ objections to calling String Theory and M Theory “science” in that they are not even conceivably testable? They are metaphysics. Not true scientific theories.

I’ve always argued that certain things are a matter of faith. I’m just showing that most if not all of us have faith in something.

Then say “why” you are unconvinced that it is sound. Then Rank Amateur, AJJ, and you can have something consequential to argue about.

My point was that so-called “scientific” hypotheses about the origin of the universe or what caused the Big Bang are untestable, unverifiable conjectures, pure metaphysics. As such, they are not really science.

If the argument is that the attributes given to God cannot be concluded from the premises, then I will agree to that. I used that objection when I was an atheist. However, the need for a cause of the universe is still there, and the so-called “scientific” causes are also posited faiths.

I don’t watch videos on philosophy forums. Lay out the argument in the video, and then I will respond.

Then you have to show where the Kalam Cosmological Argument is unsound. Philosophy dictates that you can’t just declare it so.

It could be rational to hold a belief that guides your actions, making you a better, happier person. This was William James’ definition of the rational.

Beliefs can be consistent but not coherent. That doesn’t make them false. However, the belief that the universe started by a quantum fluctuation that inflated into the universe is consistent with known facts, and it may or may not be coherent, but you would have to make that case. In this cosmology I would ask, “Who is doing the observing that caused the quantum to come into existence before it inflated into a universe?”

Another possibility: the universe was caused by a 4-dimensional black hole. The burden would have to be on the person making this claim to argue that this is a reasonable position.

Rank Amateur feels the cosmological argument is a good argument. S does not. Now, S should give an argument why one of the premises of this argument is false, or why the conclusion doesn’t follow. That’s how you critique arguments.

Personally, I think Rank Amateur is the more noble of you two, not because I agree with him (because I would have to hear the argument and counter-argument before I would decide, and I have my own reasons for my beliefs), but because he is brave enough to put forth a claim.

I believe you called me your “sworn enemy”. Lol

At least Rank Amateur has the balls to say what he believes. His belief isn’t in conflict with known facts. You won’t even make a metaphysical claim for the genesis of reality because you’re afraid to put up your beliefs to scrutiny. Most cosmologists have beliefs as to the genesis of the universe, but you are either afraid or ignorant. I think it’s both.

There are many different scientific metaphysics that attribute some kind of cause or other to the universe. These are also not falsifiable.

I just meant that God’s consciousness is unfalsifiable in that there are no experiments we could do to detect Her.

Well, I believe consciousness is akin to an energy without mass in that it causes things to happen, like quarks coming into existence.

Spirit is like pure energy maybe. Consciousness is like Spirit in that it is eternal, but I take “infinite” to refer to the material, the quantifiable. It is a mathematical tool needed to do calculus on the material. Spirit is a power or force. It need not be material in that it has mass.

I don’t equate eternal with infinite.

I mean the theater where logic and experience play out, I think.

Spirit can be finite and changing.

What is consciousness in your view?

I never ascribed the values of infinite and changeless to God.

What am I ascribing as infinite and changeless?

I disagree that consciousness requires materiality.

No one has shown that consciousness isn’t causally efficacious. In fact, there is evidence that it indeed is.

And you’re still a coward.

Obviously, you either never took a course on the theory of knowledge or you failed to comprehend it.

And I don’t mean a material God.

How is what you’re saying showing that my metaphysics is contradictory? By “falsifiable” I certainly mean by people or beings within our universe.

How could we possibly falsify it if is outside the observable universe? With what experiments?

Idealism can work with materialism. Both are necessary conditions of the universe with my metaphysics.

A conscious Being that caused the universe would be outside the universe and thus, unfalsifiable.