I agree. I wasn’t saying anything else.

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

Consciousness is not an empirical claim.

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.

It’s a logically consistent metaphysics.

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

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?

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 you’re still being a coward.

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

It could be said to be nothing in that case.

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

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.

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

You’re being evasive like a coward. Even Stephen Hawking believed in something that caused the Big Bang. You certainly aren’t well-read enough to know what he believed without knowing I would wager.

How doesn’t it follow? How did it begin then?

Yeah, liberal virtues. Not your asshole virtues. I don’t have a problem putting an asshole in his place.

I don't believe in a genesis explanation for reality — S

So, you believe our universe always existed? That’s dumb as it goes against scientific consensus.

I don’t claim to have knowledge either. I was stating pure beliefs. These beliefs help guide my actions, like the action of calling someone I believe to be a coward a “coward”, such as yourself.

I’m asking you to to submit your metaphysics here for us to critique. Do you have a problem with that? What caused the Big Bang? Do you believe in a genesis explanation for reality? What is consciousness? Is it an accident, or is it a necessary ingredient of reality? Are you a physicalist or a dualist?

It's called bad metaphysics, or wishful thinking. — S

And you are brave enough to submit your metaphysics to scrutiny?

Thanks! I believe I was made in God's image. — S

You probably think your puerile jabs affect me. You’re just a sad, little man.

I find it depressing if you can't appreciate these natural wonders without attributing them to some imagined entity. — S

I find it depressing that you find your own mind to be the penultimate in the evolution of reality.

To me, that's pie in the sky romanticism, unsuited to the questioning, critical discussion, and rational argument associated with the philosophical method. — S

It’s called metaphysics. You may have heard of it?

What can I say? I'm a liberal, and proud of it.

If you're working towards wisdom, then you should listen to what I have to say. I'm a wise old owl, as those who stick around here long enough find out. (Even if they don't like to admit it). — S

You’re a liberal in name only. I would better characterize you as an “asshole”.

What about the Soviet bloc?
— Noah Te Stroete

What about it? I know the history quite well, but what's your point? The wars of religion, the acts of terror inspired by religion, the religiously motivated oppression and persecution, punishment, torture, and extreme methods of execution, dwarf the examples of similar antireligious acts by perpetrators who were atheist. — S

The point was that any ideology can be cultivated to commit violence. The only necessary ingredient is the Politics of Difference. It just so happened that the differences among the warring factions of the past were religions. What about the Imperial Japanese? They didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor in the name of religion. They were cut off from their oil supplies. They didn’t invade China over religion. They were imperialists. The Nazis were also imperialists inspired by philosophy, a very destructive and ugly philosophy.

All that is needed for what? I might come across as a little blunt and forthright in manner, a little combative, a little sarcastic, therefore I'm exactly the kind of person who would start a war or commit an act of terrorism in the name of religion, money, power, or any other cause whatsoever? That's a bit of a stretch. — S

No, you’re not the kind of person to start a war. You’re inconsequential. You have no power. But, your tribalism is just what is needed to follow, say, a War on Terror.

Taking my sentences one by one and replying to each of them is taking them out of context. I don’t find that effective for growth which I think is the point of philosophy. Philosophy isn’t for puerile amusement.

The way I see it, you pick and choose points I have made instead of taking what I have said as a whole. We don’t have to come to an agreement. I find your method of debate to be very hostile and sarcastic, hardly in the spirit of philosophy.

You characterized it as a “fight”. You are seeing me as attacking you when I am just trying to have a discussion, and you are the one who wants to “win the fight”. That’s Satanic philosophy. I am not a Saint by any means. I am probably just as bad a “sinner” as you in different ways. I just have no desire to fight fire with fire.

I don’t disagree with you. Personally, I don’t believe the Bible is infallible as a text. It was written by fallible men, and it can be interpreted in a myriad of ways. It takes humility to be open to different interpretations and admit that your interpretation could be wrong.

That sounds more like something a Satanist would say to egg someone on rather than a reasonable atheist.

You really are more tribal than I am. I don’t really care if you personally don’t find value in religion. I do. I don’t wish to fight you, and I am done engaging you.

Yes, I believe your tribalism could be cultivated given effective propaganda. The Soviet bloc was one of the most abusive regimes in history, especially to their own people.

They all have their place! You could just as easily say philosophy is redundant and not religion. It’s a different mode of teaching.

I suggest you read “War is a Racket” by General Smedley Butler. Furthermore, your tribal attitude in defense of your worldview is all that is needed. What about the Soviet bloc?

The people who are in charge of starting wars are out for profit and power. They could just as easily engender tribalism in the masses based on different philosophies.

There is wisdom to be found in various religions.