(September 15, 2026 at 1:58 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: (Slight derailment)

I never thought I’d be happy to see Bel take over a thread.

Boru

Jal and Bel are such a cute couple.

(September 15, 2026 at 2:23 pm)Deesse23 Wrote:

(September 15, 2026 at 2:02 pm)Sheldon Wrote: Exactly, that is precisely how any open minded person would evaluate a claim.

He probably revealed his own close mindedness.

I am not an expert in philosophy, but it seems he also is ignorant of another basic fact wrt to "reasons not to believe".

I can have a terrible standard for accepting beliefs, in that I mostly reject true beliefs. That may make me ignorant but not irrstional. If I have a terrible standard for accepting wrong beliefs, I may the up holding conflicting beliefs, which is irrational. That's why having a high standard for believing is so important.
One may correct me if I am wrong.

Oh, and I hate to agree with Boru

(Bold mine)

So do I. Guy’s a complete prat.

Boru

(September 15, 2026 at 2:50 pm)awty Wrote:

(September 15, 2026 at 1:58 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: (Slight derailment)

I never thought I’d be happy to see Bel take over a thread.

Boru

Jal and Bel are such a cute couple.

Clearly, the material hand of God pushed them together.

Boru

Quote:"The first mover: Does there have to be one?"  Yes, because it is incoherent/ inconceivable to have an infinite chain of dominos where there is no first domino."

That sounds a lot like an argument from personal incredulity. 
I disbelieve in panpsychism as it is unevidenced, untestable, unfalsifiable, it also has no explanatory powers for human consciousness, and doesn't evidence any deity as far as I can see. There is plenty of evidence that human consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning human brain though. 
First cause arguments fail for a variety of reasons, not least because they involve question begging and special pleading.

(September 15, 2026 at 11:45 am)Belacqua Wrote: Years ago when we atheists were arguing against religious people on the Internet, we used to say that we reject their claims due to logic and empirical evidence. These were the reasons we had for rejecting what they said.

For example, if they claimed that Noah's ark was real, we could say that everything we know about geological history, and the amount of water there is in the world, and other empirical facts made the claim impossible, and therefore we reject it.

Other claims could be rejected simply because they made no logical sense.

So we felt we had good reasons to reject the claims. We had criteria according to which we could judge.

There’s your trouble. Believing in gods is not a religious claim. There are people who don’t believe in gods that accept all sorts of religious claims….and people who believe in gods who reject religious claims.

The latter group is not made into atheists because they reject religious claims…for any reason…or no reason in particular. The former group…accepting all sorts of religious claims for any reason or no reason in particular…are not…therefore….theists.

I’ve certainly learned plenty of things about various religious claims over the course of my life. Some I agree with, quite a few more I do not…but nothing about learning any of that ever had any bearing or effect on whether or why I didn’t believe in gods.

(August 30, 2026 at 2:35 pm)Jal Wrote: Even today Christians continue to overlook 1) the most reasonable/plausible understanding of biblical reality -

2) a pansychism where Yahwheh was simply the first piece of matter to fully awaken/evolve unto full sentience. This materialistic evolution was ultimately a psychological development instead of a biological abiogenesis. 

3) (This view makes it incredibly easy to resolve the Problem of Evil, explain how God intervenes in a material world, and show how He 'became' man). Across 13 billion years Yahweh gradually formed the universe from leftover matter (i.e. matter not yet fully awakened unto acute sentience). His own physical hand is the source/cause of all the so-called "forces" (gravity, elecricity, nuclear forces, magnetism, eletro-magnetism). His power is identical in kind to ours, meaning free will moves matter (viz. throwing a punch). After all, SOMETHING must be self-moving, because a first mover of some kind must exist, and free will is the obvious candidate for a self-moving principle, as it is confirmed/ experienced/ witnessed every moment of our lives (e.g. every time I choose to throw a punch or take a step).

4) Reductionistic atheism is too philosophically deficient to be plausible. If merely dead particles exist: 
- How did consciouness arise? Inconceivable. 
- What was the first mover that got the ball rolling? Inconceivable. 
- What is the nature of all the so-called "forces" such as gravity - what causes them?  Inconceivable. 
- How did natural selection occur?  Inconceivable (see below).
Reductionism is a determinism - a cause-effect dynamic tantamount to a domino effect which, as such, is inconducive to natural selection. 
Why so? Suppose I feel hunger and thus desire food. If free will moves matter, as I have claimed, I am not locked into a domino effect, I can freely lunge toward food and consume it.

5) Whereas, in a domino effect, my desire for food is irrelevant/ useless, as all motion is a blind causality wholly deterministic.  In a chain of dominos tipping rightward, for example, they will still fall to the right even if some of them desire the left, because desires would be irrelevant/useless, since a deterministic universe couldn't care less what we desire. 

6) Thus, in a reductionism, natural selection will fail because, in a blind causality: 
- Hunger won't precipitate food-gathering and satiation.
- Libido won't precipitate mating and reproduction.
- Fear of attack won't precipitate flight.
- Mammals won't seek the needed shelter, hibernation, and migration.
The dominos will simply fall blindly and randomly, resulting in starvation and extinction.

7) To solve this, an atheist could postulate
8) a panpsychism
9) but, without Yahweh (or some other Creator), it's a bit of a reach to account for our reality because our bodies are machines.
10) In a panysychism, a mechanical body isn't even strictly necessary for sentience,
11) and yet, fortuitiously enough, we happen to live in a world where ONLY mechanical bodies are sentient. Just a weird coincidence? Or was it Yahweh's creative design? Obviously I vote for the latter.

1) I have no idea what you mean by "biblical reality"? Since it is clear that the bible contains erroneous claims / myths, and much of it is unevidenced claims,what exactly are you talking about, and what evidence supports it? 
2) Panpsychism (it has two p's by the way) is unevidenced, untestable and unfalsifiable, it has no explanatory powers, it forms no part of material evolution. Nor for that matter do any deities, neither idea is evidenced or required by the scientific theory that explains species evolution as an entirely natural phenomenon. 
3) This is just a string of unevidenced assumptions, it is also of course question begging. 
4) This paragraph is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, nothing can be rationally asserted as true because we lack an alternative explanation / evidence. The real irony is you labelling it philosophically deficient. 
5) The vast majority of species become extinct, so your subjective bias in finding what causes this relevant or not, is ironically irrelevant to the facts of species evolution, and natural selection and all the other mechanism that have been demonstrated with overwhelming evidence to drive species evolution. 
6) A circular reasoning fallacy, you have simply assumed your conclusion a priori, bare subjective claims can not rationally be evidence, else bare claims that negated them would have to be accepted in the same fashion, violating the law of non-contradiction. 
7) An atheist need postulate nothing beyond your entire post containing not one iota of objective evidence that supports the claim a deity exists, if a complete lack of evidence is not a reasonable standard for doubt / disbelief, then I wonder what unbiased (open minded) criteria would one set, perhaps you can explain why you disbelieve in the countless deities you do, help us understand your criteria for disbelief, if it not the complete lack of objective evidence? 
8) See point 2 above. 
9) Argumentum ad ignorantiam again, and claiming without evidence that a deity did anything also has no explanatory powers, the claim our bodies are machines is just that, a bare claim, you are drawing a neat circle form your starting with the unevidneced conclusion that a deity exists, to ending with unevidenced claims about why reality can't exist with that a priori conclusion, one could literally swap the deity for anything and your argument loses nothing. 
10) See point 2 above, and panpsychism (still with 2 p's) is untestable and unfalsifiable, ipso facto it is unscientific, it is a subjective philosophical idea that remains unevidenced. 
11) You are simply pointing at objective reality and denying it can exist without beliefs you are emotionally invested in, one might as well posit Harry Potter did it all. 

Finally I managed to read the whole thing, I feel like I need a mental colonic.

(September 16, 2026 at 2:00 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(August 30, 2026 at 2:35 pm)Jal Wrote: Even today Christians continue to overlook 1) the most reasonable/plausible understanding of biblical reality -

2) a pansychism where Yahwheh was simply the first piece of matter to fully awaken/evolve unto full sentience. This materialistic evolution was ultimately a psychological development instead of a biological abiogenesis. 

3) (This view makes it incredibly easy to resolve the Problem of Evil, explain how God intervenes in a material world, and show how He 'became' man). Across 13 billion years Yahweh gradually formed the universe from leftover matter (i.e. matter not yet fully awakened unto acute sentience). His own physical hand is the source/cause of all the so-called "forces" (gravity, elecricity, nuclear forces, magnetism, eletro-magnetism). His power is identical in kind to ours, meaning free will moves matter (viz. throwing a punch). After all, SOMETHING must be self-moving, because a first mover of some kind must exist, and free will is the obvious candidate for a self-moving principle, as it is confirmed/ experienced/ witnessed every moment of our lives (e.g. every time I choose to throw a punch or take a step).

4) Reductionistic atheism is too philosophically deficient to be plausible. If merely dead particles exist: 
- How did consciouness arise? Inconceivable. 
- What was the first mover that got the ball rolling? Inconceivable. 
- What is the nature of all the so-called "forces" such as gravity - what causes them?  Inconceivable. 
- How did natural selection occur?  Inconceivable (see below).
Reductionism is a determinism - a cause-effect dynamic tantamount to a domino effect which, as such, is inconducive to natural selection. 
Why so? Suppose I feel hunger and thus desire food. If free will moves matter, as I have claimed, I am not locked into a domino effect, I can freely lunge toward food and consume it.

5) Whereas, in a domino effect, my desire for food is irrelevant/ useless, as all motion is a blind causality wholly deterministic.  In a chain of dominos tipping rightward, for example, they will still fall to the right even if some of them desire the left, because desires would be irrelevant/useless, since a deterministic universe couldn't care less what we desire. 

6) Thus, in a reductionism, natural selection will fail because, in a blind causality: 
- Hunger won't precipitate food-gathering and satiation.
- Libido won't precipitate mating and reproduction.
- Fear of attack won't precipitate flight.
- Mammals won't seek the needed shelter, hibernation, and migration.
The dominos will simply fall blindly and randomly, resulting in starvation and extinction.

7) To solve this, an atheist could postulate
8) a panpsychism
9) but, without Yahweh (or some other Creator), it's a bit of a reach to account for our reality because our bodies are machines.
10) In a panysychism, a mechanical body isn't even strictly necessary for sentience,
11) and yet, fortuitiously enough, we happen to live in a world where ONLY mechanical bodies are sentient. Just a weird coincidence? Or was it Yahweh's creative design? Obviously I vote for the latter.

1) I have no idea what you mean by "biblical reality"? Since it is clear that the bible contains erroneous claims / myths, and much of it is unevidenced claims,what exactly are you talking about, and what evidence supports it? 
2) Panpsychism (it has two p's by the way) is unevidenced, untestable and unfalsifiable, it has no explanatory powers, it forms no part of material evolution. Nor for that matter do any deities, neither idea is evidenced or required by the scientific theory that explains species evolution as an entirely natural phenomenon. 
3) This is just a string of unevidenced assumptions, it is also of course question begging. 
4) This paragraph is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, nothing can be rationally asserted as true because we lack an alternative explanation / evidence. The real irony is you labelling it philosophically deficient. 
5) The vast majority of species become extinct, so your subjective bias in finding what causes this relevant or not, is ironically irrelevant to the facts of species evolution, and natural selection and all the other mechanism that have been demonstrated with overwhelming evidence to drive species evolution. 
6) A circular reasoning fallacy, you have simply assumed your conclusion a priori, bare subjective claims can not rationally be evidence, else bare claims that negated them would have to be accepted in the same fashion, violating the law of non-contradiction. 
7) An atheist need postulate nothing beyond your entire post containing not one iota of objective evidence that supports the claim a deity exists, if a complete lack of evidence is not a reasonable standard for doubt / disbelief, then I wonder what unbiased (open minded) criteria would one set, perhaps you can explain why you disbelieve in the countless deities you do, help us understand your criteria for disbelief, if it not the complete lack of objective evidence? 
8) See point 2 above. 
9) Argumentum ad ignorantiam again, and claiming without evidence that a deity did anything also has no explanatory powers, the claim our bodies are machines is just that, a bare claim, you are drawing a neat circle form your starting with the unevidneced conclusion that a deity exists, to ending with unevidenced claims about why reality can't exist with that a priori conclusion, one could literally swap the deity for anything and your argument loses nothing. 
10) See point 2 above, and panpsychism (still with 2 p's) is untestable and unfalsifiable, ipso facto it is unscientific, it is a subjective philosophical idea that remains unevidenced. 
11) You are simply pointing at objective reality and denying it can exist without beliefs you are emotionally invested in, one might as well posit Harry Potter did it all. 

Finally I managed to read the whole thing, I feel like I need a mental colonic.

You don't seem to be reading me very well. For example my OP doeesn't presume any deity or try to push any of that on you. In fact I myself don't believe in any "deity" in the supernatural sense. In my reading of the Bible, Yahweh is basically just the first person to evolve. Thought you believed in evolution?  Thought you believed in persons? 

You act as though I have a burden of proof for pansychism. You're joking, right? What's more reasonable to assume, A or B.
(A) The fundamental properties of matter magically appeared ex nihilo at some point in time. 
(B) The fundamental properties of matter (including cognizance/awareness) are innate.
Frankly choice A sounds to me like complete idiocy. Clearly I'm the one who needs a mental colonic. 

Time and again on this thread, I have seen atheists believe apparent idiocy while insisting that I am the one burdened with proof.  This is crazy.

My OP claimed that desires are superfluous in a domino universe, because subjective feelings have no causal power. So the first question you must ask yourself is, do you believe in an  domino universe?  Let me put the quesion another way. If you were teaching a physics class, would you postulate self-locomotion? The idea that a piece of matter can just up and move - move itself by self-propulsion  -  without any mechanical push/energy such as ATP or even gravity ? Or must all activity be mechanistic cause-effect?

In truth, nothing causes/forces my arm and hand to pick up a dagger and stab someone. I am my body, and I am to blame because I (my body) moved itself. I can't blame ATP. You'll never see ATP on trial in a court, I promise you that.  ATP can certainly contribute momentum but it's not the primary controlling impetus. I am to blame because my free will (my self-locomotion) is the primary controlling impetus. That's a  basic intro to panpsychism as I define it.

"Not one iota of objective evidence that supports the claim a deity exists." This is not even the topic of the OP. Also, this kind of statement seems incredibly exaggerated. It would be more fair to say, "There is not absolute proof that a deity exists."  So what? I can't even prove that YOU exist. But I see hints that you might exist and, depending on my personal evaluation, I might understandably conclude that you do. The atheist says, "I admit that I have no First Mover, I admit that I cannot explain abiogenesis, I admit that I cannot explain any of the so-called 'forces' such as gravity, I admit that I cannot explain how space self-expanded ex nihilo at the Big Bang, I admit that I cannot explain how matter emerged from zero space, but still I see no HINT that God might exist." Huh? That sounds like finding a watch or a painting and concluding, "I see no hint that a person might have been involved."

You ask why I disbelieve in other countless deities? I believe in Yahweh because the Inward Witness is a tautological epistemology, viz:
"I should believe in religion-X only if I find it impossible to disbelieve in religion-X."
Invincible belief. That's how the Inward Witness must operate, right? Otherwise it would be pragmatically useless,right? Duh.

^She puts capers in it, which I think is a mistake.

Boru

(September 16, 2026 at 2:45 am)Jal Wrote:

(September 16, 2026 at 2:00 am)Sheldon Wrote: 1) I have no idea what you mean by "biblical reality"? Since it is clear that the bible contains erroneous claims / myths, and much of it is unevidenced claims,what exactly are you talking about, and what evidence supports it? 
2) Panpsychism (it has two p's by the way) is unevidenced, untestable and unfalsifiable, it has no explanatory powers, it forms no part of material evolution. Nor for that matter do any deities, neither idea is evidenced or required by the scientific theory that explains species evolution as an entirely natural phenomenon. 
3) This is just a string of unevidenced assumptions, it is also of course question begging. 
4) This paragraph is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, nothing can be rationally asserted as true because we lack an alternative explanation / evidence. The real irony is you labelling it philosophically deficient. 
5) The vast majority of species become extinct, so your subjective bias in finding what causes this relevant or not, is ironically irrelevant to the facts of species evolution, and natural selection and all the other mechanism that have been demonstrated with overwhelming evidence to drive species evolution. 
6) A circular reasoning fallacy, you have simply assumed your conclusion a priori, bare subjective claims can not rationally be evidence, else bare claims that negated them would have to be accepted in the same fashion, violating the law of non-contradiction. 
7) An atheist need postulate nothing beyond your entire post containing not one iota of objective evidence that supports the claim a deity exists, if a complete lack of evidence is not a reasonable standard for doubt / disbelief, then I wonder what unbiased (open minded) criteria would one set, perhaps you can explain why you disbelieve in the countless deities you do, help us understand your criteria for disbelief, if it not the complete lack of objective evidence? 
8) See point 2 above. 
9) Argumentum ad ignorantiam again, and claiming without evidence that a deity did anything also has no explanatory powers, the claim our bodies are machines is just that, a bare claim, you are drawing a neat circle form your starting with the unevidneced conclusion that a deity exists, to ending with unevidenced claims about why reality can't exist with that a priori conclusion, one could literally swap the deity for anything and your argument loses nothing. 
10) See point 2 above, and panpsychism (still with 2 p's) is untestable and unfalsifiable, ipso facto it is unscientific, it is a subjective philosophical idea that remains unevidenced. 
11) You are simply pointing at objective reality and denying it can exist without beliefs you are emotionally invested in, one might as well posit Harry Potter did it all. 

Finally I managed to read the whole thing, I feel like I need a mental colonic.

1) my OP doeesn't presume any deity or try to push any of that on you.
2) Yahweh is basically just the first person to evolve. Thought you believed in evolution?  Thought you believed in persons? 
3) You act as though I have a burden of proof for pansychism. You're joking, right?

4) What's more reasonable to assume, A or B.
(A) The fundamental properties of matter magically appeared ex nihilo at some point in time. 
(B) The fundamental properties of matter (including cognizance/awareness) are innate.
Frankly choice A sounds to me like complete idiocy. Clearly I'm the one who needs a mental colonic. 

5) My OP claimed that desires are superfluous in a domino universe, because subjective feelings have no causal power. So the first question you must ask yourself is, do you believe in an  domino universe? 

6) Let me put the quesion another way. If you were teaching a physics class, would you postulate self-locomotion? The idea that a piece of matter can just up and move - move itself by self-propulsion  -  without any mechanical push/energy such as ATP or even gravity ? Or must all activity be mechanistic cause-effect?

7) In truth, nothing causes/forces my arm and hand to pick up a dagger and stab someone. I am my body, and I am to blame because I (my body) moved itself. I can't blame ATP. You'll never see ATP on trial in a court, I promise you that.  ATP can certainly contribute momentum but it's not the primary controlling impetus. I am to blame because my free will (my self-locomotion) is the primary controlling impetus. That's a  basic intro to panpsychism as I define it.

8) "Not one iota of objective evidence that supports the claim a deity exists." This is not even the topic of the OP.

9) Also, this kind of statement seems incredibly exaggerated. It would be more fair to say, "There is not absolute proof that a deity exists." 

10) So what? I can't even prove that YOU exist.

11) The atheist says,

12) "I admit that I have no First Mover, I admit that I cannot explain abiogenesis,I admit that I cannot explain any of the so-called 'forces' such as gravity, I admit that I cannot explain how space self-expanded ex nihilo at the Big Bang, I admit that I cannot explain how matter emerged from zero space, but still I see no HINT that God might exist." Huh?
13)  That sounds like finding a watch or a painting and concluding, "I see no hint that a person might have been involved."

14) You ask why I disbelieve in other countless deities? I believe in Yahweh because the Inward Witness is a tautological epistemology, viz:
"I should believe in religion-X only if I find it impossible to disbelieve in religion-X."
Invincible belief. That's how the Inward Witness must operate, right? Otherwise it would be pragmatically useless,right? Duh.

1) What an absurdly stupid thing to say?
2) Well there you go, you can't use the word Yahweh, and capitalise it, and then pretend it means something else, then whine someone isn't reading you very well. 
3) All your claims carry a burden of proof, and yes this includes the woo woo guff of panpsychism, and ffs at least spell it correctly. 
4) Neither, since you ask, I don't base beliefs on unevidenced assumptions, and that is such an obvious false dichotomy fallacy, I wonder if you are joking, and I have fallen for some elaborate ruse?
5) Desire is a subjective claim there, and if you want me to address the term "domino universe" then you will need to explain accurately what it is and evidence your claims, I shan't hold my breath for the second one. 
6) I am not a physicist, or even a scientist, and neither are you if you are suggesting science has evidenced a deity or panpsychism. 
7) I have no idea what overarching point it is you're trying to make, or what this has to do with deities, or panpsychism? Have you jumped into moral nihilism now? This is just bizarre. 
8) It is a factual observation about your claim a deity exists. 
9) I strongly disagree, as my statement was a factual observation, and your straw man is an absolute claim that I would never make, so the irony of you calling the first an exaggeration is both palpable and hilarious? However by all means quote one single piece of objective evidence in your OP that demsontrates a deity exists?
10) Since I never made the claim, it was a straw man you produced, I think the phrase "so what?" is now apropos, and whilst I find the word prove something of a misnomer, I can certainly present compelling objective evidence that I exist., which you have failed to do for any deity or for panpsychism.
11) A string of straw man assertions, please don't try and tell me what others say, you're having enough trouble explaining your own ideas. 
12) If you can evidence a "first mover" then do so, all I have seen are arguments, and they generally fail as they always use special pleading and question begging fallacies. 
13) That is a false equivalence fallacy, since we can demonstrate compelling objective evidence for the design and manufacture of watches and paintings, there is no objective evidence for a designed universe, is this really all you have, lame variations of Paley's watchmaker fallacy? 
14) You don't seem to have answered my question at all, or addressed the bulk of my post. I still have no idea what you mean by "biblical reality" for example?

Your ideas are disjointed, incoherent (in places) unevidenced, and very poorly argued. You can't even spell panpsychism, let alone offer a cogent argument for it, all you offered are argumentum ad ignorantiam or false dichotomy fallacies.

(September 16, 2026 at 11:11 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(September 16, 2026 at 2:45 am)Jal Wrote: 1) my OP doeesn't presume any deity or try to push any of that on you.
2) Yahweh is basically just the first person to evolve. Thought you believed in evolution?  Thought you believed in persons? 
3) You act as though I have a burden of proof for pansychism. You're joking, right?

4) What's more reasonable to assume, A or B.
(A) The fundamental properties of matter magically appeared ex nihilo at some point in time. 
(B) The fundamental properties of matter (including cognizance/awareness) are innate.
Frankly choice A sounds to me like complete idiocy. Clearly I'm the one who needs a mental colonic. 

5) My OP claimed that desires are superfluous in a domino universe, because subjective feelings have no causal power. So the first question you must ask yourself is, do you believe in an  domino universe? 

6) Let me put the quesion another way. If you were teaching a physics class, would you postulate self-locomotion? The idea that a piece of matter can just up and move - move itself by self-propulsion  -  without any mechanical push/energy such as ATP or even gravity ? Or must all activity be mechanistic cause-effect?

7) In truth, nothing causes/forces my arm and hand to pick up a dagger and stab someone. I am my body, and I am to blame because I (my body) moved itself. I can't blame ATP. You'll never see ATP on trial in a court, I promise you that.  ATP can certainly contribute momentum but it's not the primary controlling impetus. I am to blame because my free will (my self-locomotion) is the primary controlling impetus. That's a  basic intro to panpsychism as I define it.

8) "Not one iota of objective evidence that supports the claim a deity exists." This is not even the topic of the OP.

9) Also, this kind of statement seems incredibly exaggerated. It would be more fair to say, "There is not absolute proof that a deity exists." 

10) So what? I can't even prove that YOU exist.

11) The atheist says,

12) "I admit that I have no First Mover, I admit that I cannot explain abiogenesis,I admit that I cannot explain any of the so-called 'forces' such as gravity, I admit that I cannot explain how space self-expanded ex nihilo at the Big Bang, I admit that I cannot explain how matter emerged from zero space, but still I see no HINT that God might exist." Huh?
13)  That sounds like finding a watch or a painting and concluding, "I see no hint that a person might have been involved."

14) You ask why I disbelieve in other countless deities? I believe in Yahweh because the Inward Witness is a tautological epistemology, viz:
"I should believe in religion-X only if I find it impossible to disbelieve in religion-X."
Invincible belief. That's how the Inward Witness must operate, right? Otherwise it would be pragmatically useless,right? Duh.

1) What an absurdly stupid thing to say?
2) Well there you go, you can't use the word Yahweh, and capitalise it, and then pretend it means something else, then whine someone isn't reading you very well. 
3) All your claims carry a burden of proof, and yes this includes the woo woo guff of panpsychism, and ffs at least spell it correctly. 
4) Neither, since you ask, I don't base beliefs on unevidenced assumptions, and that is such an obvious false dichotomy fallacy, I wonder if you are joking, and I have fallen for some elaborate ruse?
5) Desire is a subjective claim there, and if you want me to address the term "domino universe" then you will need to explain accurately what it is and evidence your claims, I shan't hold my breath for the second one. 
6) I am not a physicist, or even a scientist, and neither are you if you are suggesting science has evidenced a deity or panpsychism. 
7) I have no idea what overarching point it is you're trying to make, or what this has to do with deities, or panpsychism? Have you jumped into moral nihilism now? This is just bizarre. 
8) It is a factual observation about your claim a deity exists. 
9) I strongly disagree, as my statement was a factual observation, and your straw man is an absolute claim that I would never make, so the irony of you calling the first an exaggeration is both palpable and hilarious? However by all means quote one single piece of objective evidence in your OP that demsontrates a deity exists?
10) Since I never made the claim, it was a straw man you produced, I think the phrase "so what?" is now apropos, and whilst I find the word prove something of a misnomer, I can certainly present compelling objective evidence that I exist., which you have failed to do for any deity or for panpsychism.
11) A string of straw man assertions, please don't try and tell me what others say, you're having enough trouble explaining your own ideas. 
12) If you can evidence a "first mover" then do so, all I have seen are arguments, and they generally fail as they always use special pleading and question begging fallacies. 
13) That is a false equivalence fallacy, since we can demonstrate compelling objective evidence for the design and manufacture of watches and paintings, there is no objective evidence for a designed universe, is this really all you have, lame variations of Paley's watchmaker fallacy? 
14) You don't seem to have answered my question at all, or addressed the bulk of my post. I still have no idea what you mean by "biblical reality" for example?

You also failed to address my point that panpsychism is unevidenced, untestable and unfalsifiable, that it has no explanatory powers for human consciousness, that it forms no part of material evolution. Nor for that matter do any deities, neither idea is evidenced or required by the scientific theory that explains species evolution as an entirely natural phenomenon. 

Your ideas are disjointed, incoherent (in places) unevidenced, and very poorly argued. You can't even spell panpsychism, let alone offer a cogent argument for it, all you offered are argumentum ad ignorantiam or false dichotomy fallacies.