(Yesterday at 9:23 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: No.

Quarks are classified strictly as fundamental, point-like elementary particles with properties like mass, charge, and spin.

And that's all you'll ever see in this life - unconcscious deterministic matter, because God is not allowing its sentience to evolve.

There are only a few pieces of matter that He awakened to some significant level of sentience.
1. Adam's soul, currently subdivided/distributed among all human bodies.
2. Angels. Fallen angels in particular are distributed among the non-human creatures.

(Yesterday at 9:32 pm)Jal Wrote:

(Yesterday at 9:23 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: No.

Quarks are classified strictly as fundamental, point-like elementary particles with properties like mass, charge, and spin.

And that's all you'll ever see in this life - unconcscious deterministic matter, because God is not allowing its sentience to evolve.

Or, it just, you know, doesn't have any sentience.

There's plenty of evidence for what quarks really are. There's none for your particular lunacy.

(Yesterday at 9:37 pm)Ravenshire Wrote:

(Yesterday at 9:32 pm)Jal Wrote: And that's all you'll ever see in this life - unconcscious deterministic matter, because God is not allowing its sentience to evolve.

Or, it just, you know, doesn't have any sentience.

There's plenty of evidence for what quarks really are. There's none for your particular lunacy.

So all panpsychists are lunatics?  You're confident that no sane, reasonable philosopher embraces pansychism?

Okay.

(Yesterday at 9:42 pm)Jal Wrote:

(Yesterday at 9:37 pm)Ravenshire Wrote: Or, it just, you know, doesn't have any sentience.

There's plenty of evidence for what quarks really are. There's none for your particular lunacy.

So all panpsychists are lunatics?  You're confident that no sane, reasonable philosopher embraces pansychism?

Okay.

No, I'm saying you're a lunatic. Just because you use their words doesn't mean you speak their language.

(Yesterday at 9:53 pm)Ravenshire Wrote:

(Yesterday at 9:42 pm)Jal Wrote: So all panpsychists are lunatics?  You're confident that no sane, reasonable philosopher embraces pansychism?

Okay.

No, I'm saying you're a lunatic. Just because you use their words doesn't mean you speak their language.

Like for example when you faulted me for insinuating (neglible) sentience of quarks? That kind of language from me are you objecting to? Quick google on pansychism:

"Degrees of Mind:Proponents suggest that fundamental particles like electrons or quarks have a simple, primitive form of experience. When these particles combine into complex structures like human brains, they form rich, unified streams of conscious thought".

Funny I seem to recall similar language used somewhere on this thread. Oh right that was me.

(Yesterday at 9:15 pm)Jal Wrote:

(Yesterday at 7:08 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Let me put it in some different shoes.  Let's suppose I'm weak-willed.  I decide to have an abortion even though I know it's wrong.  I just can't live with the thought of having to give birth to and raise a baby.  I'm weak-willed.  God decides that being weak-willed isn't enough of a handicap to explain my actions, given how horribly wrong they were.  God knows how horribly wrong they were, but I didn't fully comprehend that.  God decides to punish me for being willfully evil.  I take him to court and point out that I have different values than God does.  God wants to punish me according to God's values, but I argue I shouldn't be punished according to my values.  Whose values should my punishment be decided by, mine or God's?  If you say God, it sounds like God is just rigging the dice in his favor.  He literally came from essentially nothing (his original matter), why should we trust him to set standards for us?  Why trust God at all, except as a blind choice?

Why are we obligated to God? Not sure I can be fully candid here, due to forum rules. I'll try to tread lightly.

General Revelation (Rom 1:18 to 32) suggests that God has stamped every conscience with a primordial awareness, basically at least a subsconscious level of awareness, that He exists. Hence we all have an obligation to try to seek out this particular picture/vision of God, faint as it may be.  (It's like you THOUGHT you heard your Dad calling your name, you're not sure, but you should probably try to go check, in case he needs your help).

The Arminian school of Christian thinkers claims that anyone CAN seek out this God.
The Calvinist school says, "Man is too corrupt since Adam, he will live in denial about this God unless the Holy Spirit reaches out to soften his heart".

Even the Arminians recognize that Christians should ask the Holy Spirit to invade that guy's life. 

While I reject most Calvinist points, but on this point I 'm not sure where to stand. It's one of the many issues where the Bible seems unclear.

In either case, you have an obligation to God imprinted upon your conscience, according to Rom 1:18 to 32.

You realize that none of that is your own thinking. Someone else told you these things. And for whatever reason, emotional attachment to a guardian, a powerful experience, or a passing fancy, you chose to believe them. You're following a trajectory, and the evidence I suspect will show that, despite your talk of free will, you haven't essentially deviated significantly from that trajectory. In what way is your will free then?

(Yesterday at 9:59 pm)Angrboda Wrote: You realize that none of that is your own thinking.  Someone else told you these things.

I had never heard the term pansychism when I formed my views over 35 years ago. To be honest, until this thread, I assumed no other Christians held to pansychism. I happened to notice it a couple days back when I googled some questions for this thread.

Quote: And for whatever reason, emotional attachment to a guardian, a powerful experience, or a passing fancy, you chose to believe them.   You're following a trajectory, and the evidence I suspect will show that, despite your talk of free will, you haven't essentially deviated significantly from that trajectory.  In what way is your will free then?

If you get bogged down with the mysterious, paradoxical tenets of life (such as Zeno's paradox), you might begin to think motion is impossible. But motion is a fact of our experience.

Now take those two sentences and try substituting various mysterious phenomena for "motion", such as:
- Humor
- Free will
- emotions
- sensations
- etc..

In other words, free will seems to be a fact of our experience, even if we can't pinpoint an exact definition.

@Angrboda

Oh sorry you were the one discoursing on obedience to God, let me repost.

(Yesterday at 9:32 pm)Jal Wrote:

(Yesterday at 9:23 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: No.

Quarks are classified strictly as fundamental, point-like elementary particles with properties like mass, charge, and spin.

And that's all you'll ever see in this life - unconcscious deterministic matter, because God is not allowing its sentience to evolve.

There are only a few pieces of matter that He awakened to some significant level of sentience.
1. Adam's soul, currently subdivided/distributed among all human bodies.
2. Angels. Fallen angels in particular are distributed among the non-human creatures.

Just threw your hands in the air at the end huh? Adam and eve too?

May FSM unharden your heart.

(Yesterday at 10:08 pm)Jal Wrote:

(Yesterday at 9:59 pm)Angrboda Wrote: You realize that none of that is your own thinking.  Someone else told you these things.

I had never heard the term pansychism when I formed my views over 35 years ago. To be honest, until this thread, I assumed no other Christians held to pansychism. I happened to notice it a couple days back when I googled some questions for this thread.

Quote: And for whatever reason, emotional attachment to a guardian, a powerful experience, or a passing fancy, you chose to believe them.   You're following a trajectory, and the evidence I suspect will show that, despite your talk of free will, you haven't essentially deviated significantly from that trajectory.  In what way is your will free then?

If you get bogged down with the mysterious, paradoxical tenets of life (such as Zeno's paradox), you might begin to think motion is impossible.  But motion is a fact of our experience.

Now take those two sentences and try substituting various mysterious phenomena for "motion", such as:
- Humor
- Free will
- emotions
- sensations
- etc..

In other words, free will seems to be a fact of our experience, even if we can't pinpoint an exact definition.

I find free will a useless concept. It doesn't explain anything. If I found myself acting in a way that wasn't consistent with what I had thought and felt already, I'd seek psychiatric help.