What I find odd it that you seem to want to believe something despite the evidence. That just seems bizarre to me.
Isn't that commonplace in these threads? It invariably comes from a faith-based thinker who has accepted a belief that causes him to gravitate toward, promote, and defend ideas that he thinks support his minority viewpoint.
Interestingly, not all believers do this. We have a population of what I call theistic humanists whose opinions and values seem indistinguishable from the atheist humanist's except that the former says he believes in a god, a belief which doesn't seem to modify his belief set or values. The ones I'm familiar with here on RF are all educated with advanced degrees and are in the STEM professions.
But once you encounter the types of theists whose thoughts are modified by their god beliefs, their thinking becomes motivated or tendentious. They're seeking answers to justify those beliefs in the absence of sufficient supporting evidence or as you suggest here, in the face of contradictory evidence.
This was evident in the ID program of a few decades back. Their "science" was propelled by a religious belief that changed how they viewed reality. They saw irreducible complexity wherever they saw complexity that they hoped couldn't arise naturalistically.
This kind of observer bias is present in all of us, but one can learn to overcome it. One can learn to evaluate an evidenced argument dispassionately and distinguish the sound from those with errors of factor logical fallacy. But it's an acquired skill. The atheistic and theistic humanists I described have generally mastered it, but without it, we see what we see so frequently here on RF - people arguing for ideas they assume are correct but can be shown to be incorrect.
932 words of meaningless waffle.
Your comment caused me to search for a word counter. I assumed that you didn't count them yourself. Now, I have this bookmarked. Thanks. I'd never thought to do that.
What would you expect to see?
That was in response to, "We have exactly zero evidence of any other conscious beings."
You should be able to answer that yourself. When you encounter a dog and a stone, how do you decide which if either is conscious?
Then you asked if he was a mind reader. Why do you think that one would one need to be a mind reader to say that there is no evidence of other conscious beings?
I see plenty of reason to believe in non-physical phenomena.
You're a faith-based thinker. Your criteria (reasons) for belief are not those of the critically thinking empiricist, whose beliefs about reality are tethered to the observation of reality, all of which is physical - energy, matter, and force dancing through space and time. That's all there is for us. If more exists than that, it's relevance is limited to the degree to which it can impact what can be experienced, so once again, we're justified in relying on nothing but the evidence of our senses to decide what is meaningful and what is unfalsifiable or false belief and reject the latter.
And here is a little reminder for all those who are academics, scientists, students, etc.. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary/exam depends upon his not understanding it."-Upton Sinclair.
Funny you should mention that. Do you think that you are immune to that? This is paraphrasing what I just wrote. Just change salary to hoped-for salvation.
Doesn't that describe the problem the critical thinker sees when he notes that the believer isn't fazed by contradictory evidence?
Something cannot come from nothing, and in any event, nothing does not exist, therefore existence exists everywhere eternally.
You are very insistent about things you cannot know and frankly neither need to be answered nor can be answered now and possibly never.
It seems that you have too much of a stake in how reality is and is described - much more than those disagreeing with you, who are much more willing to remain agnostic about undecidable matters. I'm not sure how much your religious views power this - but you seem to have a preference as to how reality actually is to the point that you have assumed it is what you prefer. I've seen that in others who aren't overtly religious or promoting an obvious religious agenda, but they're faith-based thinkers nevertheless, albeit not necessarily regarding gods.
By the way, it's fine with me if that's what's happening here. I don't object to you thinking that way - just me. I don't want to do that.
And I will have more confidence in others that feel the same way and who have adopted the same agenda, values, and methods. I'm glad that they exist and in sizeable enough numbers and in assorted fields of expertise that we can encounter many of them here and frequently. I can't tell you if their cosmological arguments are sound. I have to rely on the expertise of others. But it's not difficult to identify those who deserve that kind respect and those whose thinking is not to be trusted. The latter aren't hard to identify or reject. I can do that directly.
Unless science can create or show how something can come from nothing, BB can't be taken seriously.
Another of your pronouncements. The Big Bis can and is taken seriously. Nor is it necessary that something come from nothing for the Big Bang to be correct in the main going back to the end of the Planck epoch.
Why insist on this? You should eventually come to understand that your intuitions aren't reliable when discussing scales outside of experience. All of our experience is from withing a universe, and generally at the scale of naked sense perception, which is what evolution gave us brains to perceive and analyze. We already know that common sense is unreliable at quantum and cosmological scales, and at great speed or in the presence of great collections of matter and gravity.
a multiverse may be a reality.
Yes, and it is consistent with the Big Bang theory. It is also consistent with the idea that there was never nothing.
My proof rests on the evidence that the universe actually exists and that there is no evidence to demonstrate that it can be made it to cease existing.
That's a classic appeal to ignorance fallacy: if you can't "prove" that the universe can be made to stop existing, that "proves" that it can't.
You otoh have to prove the universe is not eternal, that there was a BB, and you can't.
Same argument. Nobody has to prove a logically possible idea. YOU have to demonstrate that it is logically impossible for the critical thinker to conclude that.