Imagine personal oblivion after death. Now imagine universal oblivion. In both cases there is nothing. — Noah Te Stroete

It simply doesn't follow that if I can't imagine anything, or if no one can imagine anything, then there isn't anything. That would only follow with an additional premise which only whacky idealists would accept, and I'm not one of them.

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

You have to be careful there. It would be outside the created universe, since its prior to its creation, but it would not be outside reality/ "universe" in the sense of what exists.

If such a being exists, there is a moment of reality which exists, which someone could think and experience. It's both existent and falsifiable (the absence of this existing being would falsify it).

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

It's not outside the observable universe. If someone was present, who could perceive that part reality prior to the creation of our universe, they would observe the being in question.

Obviously, it is likely outside our observation since the event would be long past and before us, but that no different than any instance or reality prior to our presence. It just means someone who observes has to be there when the event happens (if we are talking direct observation) or encounter things which show what happened (historical records, items from the past, etc.).

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

And I don’t mean a material God.

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

Those beliefs of yours which aren't supported by science run into contradiction with the beliefs of a scientifically minded person. If the science doesn't cover something, then to be consistent with science, you would stop there. You can't have your cake and eat it.

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

Idealism can work with materialism. Both are necessary conditions of the universe with my metaphysics. — Noah Te Stroete

Um, no. Your metaphysics is whack.

And you’re still a coward.

I suspected you didn't.

But if you mean a non-material God, then it is not an existing conscious being. And it can certainly not be the cause of our universe. Causes are material events. One moment of existence which leads to another.

This is what I mean by the contradiction. I'm saying you are conflating the material and non-material God. The problem isn't that your non-material claim is falsified, its that you are ascribing the material to your non-material God. It's a logical contradiction in your idea of God.

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

...that wasn't my claim. States of consciousness may be causally efficacious. My point was any such state is material, a contingent moment of existence present in terms of what exists. This is in contradiction with a non-material God. If God is non-material, God cannot be a causally efficacious entity of consciousness.

I disagree that consciousness requires materiality.

Right, and that's the contradiction in your metaphysics. You ascribe something finite and limited, a thing of experience which causes something else, to that which is infinite, beyond change and the limits of tiny causal moments, the non-material.

What am I ascribing as infinite and changeless?

I'm saying the "non-material" is infinite and changeless.

So when you claim the finite, limited moment of God causing our universe is "non-material," you ascribe the tiny moment of God causing our universe with and infinite and changelessness it does not have.

It's like taking a group of humans and saying, since they build a city or some other environment, they are infinite and changeless. Causing something doesn't mean you are infinite. Indeed, it's the exact opposite because the cause is limited to that singular finite moment.

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

What is consciousness in your view?

Yes, you did. You also claimed God was "non-material" rather than a finite, material state of existence.

Spirit can be finite and changing.

What do you mean be "consciousness?"

Do you mean the existence of a consciousness entity/states that cause some other event of existence?

Or do you mean the infinite, changeless meanings of logic which may appear in conscious experience?

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

Sure, that would just mean it is material/finite. Such spirit would exist in one moment and possibly be gone the next.

I don’t equate eternal with infinite.

That doesn't really help me because you could be referring to either. Logic and experience have a theatre in the sense of the infinite definition of their concepts which are infinite and changeless.

But they also have the material theatre of when individuals exist experiencing them, causing things with them or being caused.

Sure, neither do I, necessary. There might be, for example, a existing entity who lives at all finite moments, who keeps living from moment to moment. We might say this entity exists eternally (it's always living). The idea is pretty common. Any sort of immortal being would fall under this, a thing of existence which just keeps living and living.

This sort of eternity is not infinity or changelessness. The immortal is subject to change, the limit of their life in a moment and the possibility of death. They are material/finite, even though they might exist eternally.

When I speak of the infinite, I'm not refer to this sort of eternal thing. I'm talking about a truth which is always the case, no matter what happens in existence (an immortal being never fits this because they require existence, the fact they exist living, etc.).

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.

By "material" I'm referring to a certain metaphysical distinction between a category of existing things and a category of things beyond/regardless of existence. It's wider than just "matter" or "mass". It refers to anything which is true via something existing. So it includes existing things don't manifest as mass at all, such as a person's experiences, the colours of an object, etc.