The suggestion of schizotypy is interesting. While healthy subjects experience psychotic episodes, they are more likely to be experienced by schizotypal individuals. They are probably prone to overinterpreting things.

(September 16, 2026 at 3:31 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(September 16, 2026 at 12:32 pm)Deesse23 Wrote: What i would like to know from Jal now is this:

Why does he does not give the impression of being a Panpsychist, but in fact is one? Are all other Panpsychists not Panpsychists? Is he the only real ® Panpsychist?

If we remember all the way back to the beginning- it’s not so much that Jal is a panpsychist so much as that Jal believed that a thing panpsychists say…to his mind….solved a problem from his own and actual worldview…..which is a variant of literal magic bookism.  The idea that this one neat trick rescued the truth of scripture.  

He doesn’t reject biology because he’s a panpsychist.  He doesn’t reject physics because he’s a panpsychist.  He rejects them because he’s a creationist.

Oh, definitely. As AI said: He amalgamated religion with panpsychism. The core of his very personal "religiosophy" a creator fiddling around with his creation for 13bn years, moving around each and every single quark singlehandedly, for ever, and each quark is sentient. Nothing less than batshit crazy. But that seems not to be the point, at all.

But, comparing this with the other, unnamed user, suggested a fascinating commonality, although they appear to be fundamentally different. One clearly uneducated and willfully ignorant, who has nothing to offer intellectually whatsoever. The other one probably quite well educated, intellectually honest, and being very, very articulate (ok, definitely not Boru). What's common, however (and ultimately relevant) is maybe not what they actually (profess to) believe, what they defend, the points they make. They could be defending entirely different beliefs. Both are here and seemingly get a "kick" out of being publicly humiliated (as do many others who "drive by"). I often asked myself why would anyone do that to himself for a prolonged amount of time. AIs suggestion was, for both as different as they appear!!) exactly the same:

Narcissistic supply

The need to feel special/superior. A forum like this has been chosen, because in real life there is no such supply (there can only be so many US presidents) for them. They are too irrelevant irl. Nobody pays attention. It does not matter what it is that makes them special, it could be anything, its being the "outsider" per se, either indirectly by having "fringe" beliefs to express one being special, or directly by trying to openly profess intellectual superiority down on everyone else. To them any pushback, having to argue against multiple users is not a humiliation; they arent looking for discourse either, its about the narcissistic supply only. Its the attention. It seems like to those the interactions in here feel subjectively different than to somebody like me. They dont feel humiliated. They feel "special" and "superior" exactly because nobody is like them in here.

Anyhow, enough psych et al, and before anyone tries to squeeze me through the AI meatgrinder: I am here to
1) keep my english up
2) Widen my horizon by communicating with people from all over the world
3) Learn arguing. Attack and be attacked. Dish out and learn to take it. Structure your arguments. What are, and how to avoid fallacies. Spot them in others arguments, etc.
4) Learn stuff. I have a tech background, and the "soft" sciences like philosophy are a nice counterweight and complementary to my original tech education and daily life

Over the course of the past 20y i figured that more than 50% of discussions (and arguments) with co-engineers arent about tech, but about egos or talking past each other because you start with very different premises. Too often and too long i was under the (false) assumption that its about what is right and what is wrong, while missing the point that i am engaging with humans who have emotions who are attached to their ideas (hell i am sometimes too). Hell, maybe i was (too) tone deaf, if you would have asked all of them. I dont know if i will get better, but at least i try.

(September 16, 2026 at 4:22 pm)Deesse23 Wrote: The core of his very personal "religiosophy" a creator fiddling around with his creation for 13bn years, moving around each and every single quark singlehandedly, for ever, and each quark is sentient. Nothing less than batshit crazy. But that seems not to be the point, at all.

He claims he can't rationally believe in any other thing because "prime mover" - so he certainly doesn't want "prime mover" to be an objection to his silly god.  If consciousness were fundamental, he believes....then there would not need to be "prime mover" to push his god from non consciousness to consciousness.  From non existence to existence.

The whole bit is at odds with itself on every level. If there's a point, that's the point, as useless as it is.

The counterpoint in context being -if the explanation for everything is a creator god, and this creator god didn't need a prime mover....then nothing did.

(September 16, 2026 at 11:24 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(September 16, 2026 at 2:45 am)Jal Wrote:  my OP doeesn't presume any deity or try to push any of that on you.

Well, let's take a look then:

Quote:Jal Wrote: (This view makes it incredibly easy to resolve the Problem of Evil, explain how God intervenes in a material world,

Across 13 billion years Yahweh gradually formed the universe

Reductionistic atheism is too philosophically deficient to be plausible.

Three separate claims in your OP, about the existence of a deity.

 Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.  You can't seem to read me at all.  You don't seem to understand the concept of theodicy as a response to the Problem of Evil. Are you aware that this POE is often considered the number one objection to theism among atheists?

On this atheist forum I'm a Christian mostly doing two things.
(1). Arguing that a fully deterministic universe - a domino universe - seems contrary to perceived facts. A libertarian panpsychism is a more reasonable estimation. 
(2). As a bonus argument, I'm explaining why this panpsychism provides the first viable theodicy in the history of Christian theology.

Contrary to what you seem to keep implying, theodicy doesn't presume the existence of a deity. It's more hypothetical than that, viz.
"Can the hypothesis that God exists be reconciled with evil?"
For example I am not really expecting any atheists to accept my belief that Yahweh exists and altruistically slaved away/labored 13 billion years on our behalf. I'm simply pointing out that, if we define God that way, it's a springboard to reconcile a kind-hearted God with evil.

(September 16, 2026 at 10:14 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(September 16, 2026 at 4:22 pm)Deesse23 Wrote: The core of his very personal "religiosophy" a creator fiddling around with his creation for 13bn years, moving around each and every single quark singlehandedly, for ever, and each quark is sentient. Nothing less than batshit crazy. But that seems not to be the point, at all.

He claims he can't rationally believe in any other thing because "prime mover" - so he certainly doesn't want "prime mover" to be an objection to his silly god.  If consciousness were fundamental, he believes....then there would not need to be "prime mover" to push his god from non consciousness to consciousness.  From non existence to existence.

The whole bit is at odds with itself on every level.  If there's a point, that's the point, as useless as it is.

The counterpoint in context being -if the explanation for everything is a creator god, and this creator god didn't need a prime mover....then nothing did.

I get so tired of trying to understand your posts. So often feels like you're just rambling. What point are you trying to make here?

Quote:The counterpoint in context being -if the explanation for everything is a creator god, and this creator god didn't need a prime mover....then nothing did.

Again, what's your point? You act like you're furnishing some profound insight/analysis here. This is your ineffably trenchant "counterpoint" to my position? 
Newsflash: it is precisely my foundational assumption that, in a panpsychism, no special "prime mover" is needed. Everything is self-locomoting although, for most pieces of matter, that potentiality is still dormant/unawakened.

And by the way, you continue to call Yahweh a silly god but I still don't recall anything silly about Him.

(September 16, 2026 at 4:22 pm)Deesse23 Wrote:

(September 16, 2026 at 3:31 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: If we remember all the way back to the beginning- it’s not so much that Jal is a panpsychist so much as that Jal believed that a thing panpsychists say…to his mind….solved a problem from his own and actual worldview…..which is a variant of literal magic bookism.  The idea that this one neat trick rescued the truth of scripture.  

He doesn’t reject biology because he’s a panpsychist.  He doesn’t reject physics because he’s a panpsychist.  He rejects them because he’s a creationist.

Oh, definitely. As AI said: He amalgamated religion with panpsychism. The core of his very personal "religiosophy" a creator fiddling around with his creation for 13bn years, moving around each and every single quark singlehandedly, for ever, and each quark is sentient. Nothing less than batshit crazy. But that seems not to be the point, at all.

But, comparing this with the other, unnamed user, suggested a fascinating commonality, although they appear to be fundamentally different. One clearly uneducated and willfully ignorant, who has nothing to offer intellectually whatsoever. The other one probably quite well educated, intellectually honest, and being very, very articulate (ok, definitely not Boru). What's common, however (and ultimately relevant) is maybe not what they actually (profess to) believe, what they defend, the points they make. They could be defending entirely different beliefs. Both are here and seemingly get a "kick" out of being publicly humiliated (as do many others who "drive by"). I often asked myself why would anyone do that to himself for a prolonged amount of time. AIs suggestion was, for both as different as they appear!!) exactly the same:

Narcissistic supply

The need to feel special/superior. A forum like this has been chosen, because in real life there is no such supply (there can only be so many US presidents) for them. They are too irrelevant irl. Nobody pays attention. It does not matter what it is that makes them special, it could be anything, its being the "outsider" per se, either indirectly by having "fringe" beliefs to express one being special, or directly by trying to openly profess intellectual superiority down on everyone else. To them any pushback, having to argue against multiple users is not a humiliation; they arent looking for discourse either, its about the narcissistic supply only. Its the attention. It seems like to those the interactions in here feel subjectively different than to somebody like me. They dont feel humiliated. They feel "special" and "superior" exactly because nobody is like them in here.

Anyhow, enough psych et al, and before anyone tries to squeeze me through the AI meatgrinder: I am here to
1) keep my english up
2) Widen my horizon by communicating with people from all over the world
3) Learn arguing. Attack and be attacked. Dish out and learn to take it. Structure your arguments. What are, and how to avoid fallacies. Spot them in others arguments, etc.
4) Learn stuff. I have a tech background, and the "soft" sciences like philosophy are a nice counterweight and complementary to my original tech education and daily life

Over the course of the past 20y i figured that more than 50% of discussions (and arguments) with co-engineers arent about tech, but about egos or talking past each other because you start with very different premises. Too often and too long i was under the (false) assumption that its about what is right and what is wrong, while missing the point that i am engaging with humans who have emotions who are attached to their ideas (hell i am sometimes too). Hell, maybe i was (too) tone deaf, if you would have asked all of them. I dont know if i will get better, but at least i try.

Almost 1,000 posts deep, and yet you still seem to think that calling a position "batshit-crazy" counts as an effective rebuttal.

(September 16, 2026 at 11:29 am)Sheldon Wrote:

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

Complete gibberish, not one word explains why you don't believe in the countless other deities humans have imagined, or offers any hint at your criteria for disbelief, which is what I asked?

Oh my heavens. Maybe you ought to google on the Inward Witness. 

Criteria?  By that you mean some objective criteria such as laboratory-reproducible verifications.

You can't seem to comprehend that's a stupid way for God to try to run His kingdom and establish world peace.  It's almost as stupid as the idea prominent among  Christians that trying to follow the Bible via bible-scholarship will bring consensus and cultivate peace. 

Forget about objective criteria. If God wants you to do something right now, or believe something right now, the efficacious strategy is to physically reach into your brain and irresistibly CAUSE you to believe His propositions subjectively. This is called the Inward Witness, at for the last 500 years of Protestant theology.

(September 16, 2026 at 12:32 pm)Deesse23 Wrote: What i would like to know from Jal now is this:

Why does he does not give the impression of being a Panpsychist, but in fact is one? Are all other Panpsychists not Panpsychists? Is he the only real ® Panpsychist?

If he sounds like he's having the narcissistic compulsion to always be right, how is it that he is, in fact, always right?

If he gives the impression of being a highly engaged amateur apologist who has dug himself into a self-invented philosophical system, how is it that all professional philosophers (panpsychists) and scientists are wrong and he is right? 

How is it that all of philosophy and science is rather self-invented (inconceivable mumbo-jumbo, etc. pp) but he is the only person on the planet who has understood all of this?

This seems like a really stupid post, for two reasons.
(1) You are literally chastising me for vigorously defending my point of view.  Isn't that standard practice on a forum? Would it make more sense for me to argue that all my opinions are wrong? But if I felt them to be wrong, I wouldn't have so opined, correct?
(2) It should be obvious that competing metaphysical systems cannot all be correct. SOMONE is hopefully right, hopefully me, as opposed to someone else.

(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.

That was funny.