No, but I’m sure they all have their beliefs.

I don’t think it matters whether our universe is special or not. To me, God is a loving Presence, a Spirit akin to a Universal Consciousness that all of us can call upon for hope, peace, love, equanimity, patience, joy, and all of the loving virtues. It makes no difference how many universes there are. God is Present in all life-supporting worlds. — Noah Te Stroete

I want to know how such a God can be said to exist. Nothing you said there makes a claim of an existing being of God in the world. We are always able to call upon notions of hope, peace, love, etc. in virtue of own existence. That's to say, we just have the relevant idea and take the action of calling to the meaning. We can do this, it would seem, whether "God exists" is true or "God doesn't exist is true."

Given this, how is this Universal Consciousness an existing being of God, since its present regardless of whether God exists or not?

I take consciousness to be a necessary ingredient of the universe, as the universe would not have form without it. It is consciousness that gives reality its attributes. How can anything be said without it? I attribute the best qualities to this universal consciousness because I believe the external universe was created for rational creatures wherever they exist in the universe by this universal consciousness, and I believe S/HE did this so we could experience consciousness as well. I believe this was an act of love.

Now, these are beliefs that are not knowledge. Perhaps I am like William James in this case in that I believe in this case that it is rational to believe what makes me feel good. Furthermore, this belief causes no harm as long as I allow others to hold their own contrary beliefs, which I do.

It's just wishful thinking. It's like a situation where we're talking about what might be in my fridge, and I say, "To me, my fridge is full to the brim with tantalising treats, including chocolate cake, cherry pie, fruit salad, milkshake, and ice cream!".

How do you make sense of a universe devoid of consciousness?

How do you make sense of a universe devoid of consciousness? — Noah Te Stroete

It would be much like this one, minus the consciousness.

It could be said to be nothing in that case.

It could be said to be nothing in that case. — Noah Te Stroete

That couldn't reasonably be said, but what do you care about reason?

It sure can be reasonably said. How is something differentiated from nothing without consciousness?

And you’re still being a coward.

It sure can be reasonably said. — Noah Te Stroete

Nope.

How is something differentiated from nothing without consciousness? — Noah Te Stroete

Um, what? Please explain why you think that that's a relevant question.

Because the universe is devoid of meaning without consciousness. I believe the universe was caused by a consciousness, and there was meaning to it before there were conscious creatures. And you’re a coward for not sharing what you believe.

And furthermore, what harm am I causing you in this belief? It’s certainly a possible explanation that is not contradicted by any known facts. So what’s the harm?

Because the universe is devoid of meaning without consciousness. — Noah Te Stroete

A universe devoid of meaning wouldn't be nothing, it would just be a universe devoid of meaning. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Without consciousness, I wouldn't be able to differentiate anything, but that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be anything, it just means that I wouldn't be able to differentiate anything. These are non sequiturs on your part.

I believe the universe was caused by a consciousness, and there was meaning to it before there were conscious creatures. And you’re a coward for not sharing what you believe. — Noah Te Stroete

I believe that my fridge is full of tantalising treats, that I'm a billionaire, and that I'm surrounded by flying pink unicorns and rainbows.

I know that, but my point is that is not attributed to any existing being under your argument.

Let's consider this Universal Consciousness. What happens if it exists with respect to the arguments you have given? Humans can call upon notions of hope, peace, love, etc. because they have those ideas and experiences.

Now what happens is if this Universal Consciousness doesn't exist? Humans can call upon notions of hope, peace, love, etc. because they have those ideas and experience.

My point is the existence of this Universal Consciousness doesn't matter to humans been able to call on notions of of hope, peace, love, etc. Humans can do it whether Universal Consciousness exists or not.

The meaning you are talking about/logical structure with Universal Consciousness is true without respect to whether it exists. It's a different sort of presence.

No. Nothing and something would be the same without consciousness. It is consciousness that gives the universe form.

And furthermore, what harm am I causing you in this belief? It’s certainly a possible explanation that is not contradicted by any known facts. So what’s the harm? — Noah Te Stroete

It's just not philosophy, and this is a philosophy forum.

It’s metaphysics. No one’s metaphysics is falsifiable unless it is contradictory.

Nothing and something would be the same without consciousness. — Noah Te Stroete

I think that that's absurd. But the burden is on you, so...

It is consciousness that gives the universe form. — Noah Te Stroete

Again, that's not philosophy. Just blurting out something that you happen to believe isn't doing philosophy.

The OP says that science is inherently atheistic. I’m showing that religion or spirituality can be logically consistent with science. Atheism is faith, too. I don’t believe that atheism is just a lack of belief. That would be agnosticism.

It’s a logically consistent metaphysics.

I'm not sure if it is your exactly metaphysics, but the metaphysics S thinks you have is contradictory.

The metaphysics S is attacking equivocates metaphysical entities (logical meaning, presences which do not exist nor exist) with empirical ones (the existence of some conscious being).

I think that that's absurd. But the burden is on you, so... — S

Imagine personal oblivion after death. Now imagine universal oblivion. In both cases there is nothing.

Consciousness is not an empirical claim.

The OP says that science is inherently atheistic. I’m showing that religion or spirituality can be logically consistent with science. Atheism is faith, too. I don’t believe that atheism is just a lack of belief. That would be agnosticism. — Noah Te Stroete

No, you haven't shown that your whacky beliefs are consistent with science. And no, atheism isn't faith. And fine, according to you, I'm an agnostic. In case you haven't picked up on it, I don't really care what you call me.

It’s a logically consistent metaphysics. — Noah Te Stroete

If that's all it has going for it, it's nothing to write home about.

Science can be performed by the religious or as part of the practice of a religious tradition (just as it can with any other human tradition), but in terms of the science itself, the question really doesn't make sense. Science is just a method of investigating how the world works. It just takes in the world and tries to describe how it works.

Religion or non-religion is just a different thing, a certain kind or practice a person might be involved in. Either way, it has nothing to do with science itself.

My beliefs don’t contradict science. That’s all I meant by “consistent”.

I agree. I wasn’t saying anything else.

Consciousness isn't. That's just a reference to a certain type of logical meaning.

A conscious being, however, most certainly is of the empirical. It's a particular state of the world. If you are going to claim: "this conscious person exists" or "this conscious God exists," it an argument about something that exists.

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