(September 15, 2026 at 3:17 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 15, 2026 at 2:50 pm)awty Wrote: Jal and Bel are such a cute couple.

Clearly, the material hand of God pushed them together.

Boru

Another good one. 

(September 15, 2026 at 4:22 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

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.

I think all of us are biased on some respects. What's amazing is the extent to which you underestimate your own bias.

On the one hand you CLAIM to believe only what is falsifiable - which is an inherently solipsistic stance.
The reality is that you DO have some opinions that you can't 100% prove - you just pick and choose the ones personally appealing to you. For example, up this point in the debate, you have believed that I exist. 

"There is plenty of evidence that human consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning human brain though."  Perfect example of your selective beliefs. You are simply ASSUMING something that you cannot prove, merely because you like that assumption. At the least panpsychist is forthcoming and transparent, he takes innate conscoiusness as a foundational assumption for obvious reasons, rather than try to prove it.

(September 16, 2026 at 11:17 am)Sheldon Wrote:

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

There's so much misunderstanding and poor argumentation here I frankly don't have time to address it all. 

 Just one example, where you say:
"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. "

Again, I can't give you 100% proof of anything. That's a stupidly high bar for forming opinions, like your opinion that I exist. 
Setting aside that unrealistically high standard, it seems clear that at least one thing has moved, by today's date? Which seems to suggest that something(s) moved first?
In a panpsychism, of course, I have no objections to the theory that every piece of matter begin moving simultaneously, but I tend to believe that most matter moved only negligibly at the outset. Just my opinion

(September 15, 2026 at 4:22 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

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.

I forgot. I meant to cite this as another example of your biased/selective beliefs. 
You CLAIM to believe only what you have evidence for. Well on a daily basis, 100% of the objects facing you are finite. 
The human mind can't even CONCEIVE of an infinite reality that actually exists. 
So, like me, based on evidence, you should NOT be inclined to believe in an infinite chain of dominos.
But suddenly you want to pretend that I am being unreasonable - to so opine? Remember your opinions aren't proven at 100%. Neither are mine. So what?

But I think if we are going to be consistent and reasonable, an infinite chain of dominos (extending backwards into an infinite past?) is an unlikely theory, well I'm  not even sure it's a theory as it's humanly inconceivable.

(September 16, 2026 at 11:10 pm)Jal Wrote:

(September 16, 2026 at 11:24 am)Sheldon Wrote: Well, let's take a look then:

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.

Your claims are in the OP, editing them out of your latest disjointed rant just smacks of dishonesty. Address them or don't, I have zero interest in your duplicitous babble.

You made 3 separate claims about the existence of a deity, and then denied it. Here they are again 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.

My previous response on this has the link to your OP.

(September 16, 2026 at 11:39 pm)Jal Wrote:

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

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

What I mean, unlike you, is exactly...what I said, you have the theists aversion to giving plain honest answers, as we see here again. I ask one last time, what is your criteria for disbelief, that's as simple as I can make the question for you.

(September 17, 2026 at 12:05 am)Jal Wrote:

(September 15, 2026 at 4:22 pm)Sheldon Wrote: 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.

I think all of us are biased on some respects. What's amazing is the extent to which you underestimate your own bias.

On the one hand you CLAIM to believe only what is falsifiable - which is an inherently solipsistic stance.
The reality is that you DO have some opinions that you can't 100% prove - you just pick and choose the ones personally appealing to you. For example, up this point in the debate, you have believed that I exist. 

"There is plenty of evidence that human consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning human brain though."  Perfect example of your selective beliefs. You are simply ASSUMING something that you cannot prove, merely because you like that assumption. At the least panpsychist is forthcoming and transparent, he takes innate conscoiusness as a foundational assumption for obvious reasons, rather than try to prove it.

Yes this type of projection in theists when they are called on their bias is a pretty common tactic, but since we are discussing your OP claims, and you have not offered any example of bias from me, and failed to address your fallacious reasoning quoted and explained for you in my post, I think that projection is manifest again. 

I never made the claims you have assigned me, in that second paragraph, not one of them, please don't paraphrase me, it's painful to see you fuck it up. 

Again in the third paragraph, I never said I could prove anything, can you read even the simples assertion and not project your own bias onto it?

Panpsychism is a subjective philosophical idea, it is unfalsifiable and thus untestable, it is unsupported by any objective evidence, and it has no explanatory powers for the emergence of human consciousness, if you think offering your subjective preference for this belief is a salient response to those objections, well it's hard not to point and laugh. NB you never even asked what objective evidence I could demonstrate for my own existence, or for human consciousness being an emergent property of a functioning human brain, maybe you don't see how this and your distortion of those assertion using words like prove screams subjective bias from you, but I'd bet others see it.

(September 17, 2026 at 12:15 am)Jal Wrote: There's so much misunderstanding and poor argumentation here I frankly don't have time to address it all. 

 Just one example, where you say:
"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. "

Again, I can't give you 100% proof of anything. That's a stupidly high bar for forming opinions, like your opinion that I exist. 
Setting aside that unrealistically high standard, it seems clear that at least one thing has moved, by today's date? Which seems to suggest that something(s) moved first?
In a panpsychism, of course, I have no objections to the theory that every piece of matter begin moving simultaneously, but I tend to believe that most matter moved only negligibly at the outset. Just my opinion

You have no interest or lack the capacity to honestly address it more like. 

Forget proof and certainty, since these are straw men you have introduced, and nothing to do with what I have asked you about your claims. 

What evidence supports panpsychism? Give us the best you think you have?

I'd bet my house your rationale will involve argumentum ad ignorantiam and false dichotomy arguments, they have so far anyway. 

Offer just your opinion on your favourite foods or colour, it's meaningless in evidencing claims about the origins of human consciousness.

(September 17, 2026 at 12:34 am)Jal Wrote:

(September 15, 2026 at 4:22 pm)Sheldon Wrote: 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.

I forgot. I meant to cite this as another example of your biased/selective beliefs. 
You CLAIM to believe only what you have evidence for. Well on a daily basis, 100% of the objects facing you are finite. 
The human mind can't even CONCEIVE of an infinite reality that actually exists. 
So, like me, based on evidence, you should NOT be inclined to believe in an infinite chain of dominos.
But suddenly you want to pretend that I am being unreasonable - to so opine? Remember your opinions aren't proven at 100%. Neither are mine. So what?

But I think if we are going to be consistent and reasonable, an infinite chain of dominos (extending backwards into an infinite past?) is an unlikely theory, well I'm  not even sure it's a theory as it's humanly inconceivable.

Pure gibberish, and again you failed to remotely address a thing I said, just repeated your earlier incoherent claims.

(September 17, 2026 at 1:52 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(September 17, 2026 at 12:15 am)Jal Wrote: There's so much misunderstanding and poor argumentation here I frankly don't have time to address it all. 

 Just one example, where you say:
"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. "

Again, I can't give you 100% proof of anything. That's a stupidly high bar for forming opinions, like your opinion that I exist. 
Setting aside that unrealistically high standard, it seems clear that at least one thing has moved, by today's date? Which seems to suggest that something(s) moved first?
In a panpsychism, of course, I have no objections to the theory that every piece of matter begin moving simultaneously, but I tend to believe that most matter moved only negligibly at the outset. Just my opinion

You have no interest or lack the capacity to honestly address it more like. 

Forget proof and certainty, since these are straw men you have introduced, and nothing to do with what I have asked you about your claims. 

What evidence supports panpsychism? Give us the best you think you have?

I'd bet my house your rationale will involve argumentum ad ignorantiam and false dichotomy arguments, they have so far anyway. 

Offer just your opinion on your favourite foods or colour, it's meaningless in evidencing claims about the origins of human consciousness.

- I say, "Matter's fundamental properties should be assumed innate until proven otherwise".
- You seem to be saying "Matter's fundamental properties should be assumed emergent until proven otherwise." 
Oddly you feel entitled to put the burden of proof on me. 
Reason why I disagree with it: in general, if the fundamental properties of matter are emergent, then matter self-emerged ex nihilo. That sounds absurd.

Stop asking me for proof. Your position seems to be absurd one, and you have no proof of it either.