(September 17, 2026 at 1:54 am)Sheldon Wrote:

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

Exactly what an existing infinity really is.

(September 17, 2026 at 1:38 am)Sheldon Wrote:

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

From the beginning, I simply expected the readers to be smart enough to understand the hypothetical nature of theodicy. You're really making me begin to regret that mistake. 

For me, being a CHRISTIAN, my theodicy is more than hypothetical, it's  what I currently believe. But HERE I expect mostly to address atheists on this thread.

Maybe I can put it in words clear to you. Here's my stance: if you are an atheist, please do NOT come to a belief in Yahweh based on anything I have written on this thread. That is the LAST thing I could want of you. Reason: The Inward Witness is pretty much the only way to come to an AUTHENTIC faith in Yahweh (excepting maybe one caveat). For example I don't believe that Mormons have an authentic faith.

If you get stuck in an inauthentic faith, your heart will likely be too hardened/resistant to the Inward Witness to ever be saved (because the Holy Spirit doesn't much like reaching into hardened hearts). 

So you can stop pretending that my OP was trying to push Yahweh on you. By all means, PLEASE DO NOT BELIEVE IN YAHWEH !!!!

Clear?
Probably not. In that case, I think I will have to throw in the towel, as you can't seem to comprehend anything I write.

(September 17, 2026 at 4:01 am)Jal Wrote:

(September 17, 2026 at 1:38 am)Sheldon Wrote: 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:



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

From the beginning, I simply expected the readers to be smart enough to understand the hypothetical nature of theodicy. You're really making me begin to regret that mistake. 

For me, being a CHRISTIAN, my theodicy is more than hypothetical, it's  what I currently believe. But HERE I expect mostly to address atheists on this thread.

Maybe I can put it in words clear to you. Here's my stance: if you are an atheist, please do NOT come to a belief in Yahweh based on anything I have written on this thread. That is the LAST thing I could want of you. Reason: The Inward Witness is pretty much the only way to come to an AUTHENTIC faith in Yahweh (excepting maybe one caveat). For example I don't believe that Mormons have an authentic faith.

If you get stuck in an inauthentic faith, your heart will likely be too hardened/resistant to the Inward Witness to ever be saved (because the Holy Spirit doesn't much like reaching into hardened hearts). 

So you can stop pretending that my OP was trying to push Yahweh on you. By all means, PLEASE DO NOT BELIEVE IN YAHWEH !!!!

Clear?
Probably not. In that case, I think I will have to throw in the towel, as you can't seem to comprehend anything I write.

Joe Gould: 'You're gonna have to stop some of those left hands.'

Jim Braddock: 'You see any gettin' past my head?' - Cinderella Man

Boru

(September 17, 2026 at 3:50 am)Jal Wrote:

(September 17, 2026 at 1:54 am)Sheldon Wrote: Pure gibberish, and again you failed to remotely address a thing I said, just repeated your earlier incoherent claims.

Exactly what an existing infinity really is.

Vito Corleone: 'Is this what you've become, a Hollywood finocchio who cries like a woman?' - The Godfather

Boru

Quote:The Inward Witness is pretty much the only way to come to an AUTHENTIC faith in Yahweh (excepting maybe one caveat). For example I don't believe that Mormons have an authentic faith.

And Mormons believe your faith is not authentic. Go to a Mormon forum and sort this out, before you come back to to us who know both your faiths are useless. Even better: go to a Catholic forum after defeating the Mormons, then go bother some evangelicals, Protestants....so many other Christians, have fun! Well wait here 

The compulsion to always be right and the postulation of an "invincible belief" (Inward Witness) can reflect a personality style where the ego is heavily tied to an eccentric opinion to feel intellectually superior.

Remember?

(September 17, 2026 at 3:49 am)Jal Wrote:

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

- 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.

Stop lying that I have asked for proof, when my question (underlined and emboldened above) is there for all to see. 

I don't seem to be saying anything, I asked a direct question, that cannot be simpler, here it is again:
What evidence supports panpsychism? Give us the best you think you have?

Of course your claims about panpsychism carry a burden of proof, as do all claims, NB: this phrase is not a demand for proof, perhaps you didn't know this? 

Quote:Burden of proof (philosophy)
The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat – the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position. When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim...

CITATION

I made no claims about the "fundamental properties of matter", though it goes as read any claims you try and attach to the phrase you will need to evidence or they join the rest of your unevidenced opinions in the bin as meaningless. 

Quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur.

NB It was you who came here to peddle your superstitious wares, no one sought you out. 

One last, I have not expressed any position to you beyond a lack of theistic belief, and I could care less how you view that, since you have neither the wit nor integrity to acknowledge what it means, apparently.

(September 17, 2026 at 3:50 am)Jal Wrote:

(September 17, 2026 at 1:54 am)Sheldon Wrote: Pure gibberish, and again you failed to remotely address a thing I said, just repeated your earlier incoherent claims.

Exactly what an existing infinity really is.

What has that to do with what I posted? Here it is again for all to see:

Quote: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.

Again your response is irrelevant gibberish, why you're bothering to reply and then ignore my post entirely only you can know. Hsall I try bullet points to dumb it down?

1. Please go back to my original post and address the objection that you used an argument from personal incredulity.
   
2. Please address the points presented about panpsychism. 
   
3. Please explain whether you believe panpsychism evidences any deity, and if so why, pay attention to the objections to panpsychism above when answering (who am I kidding)
   
4. Please address a claim I actually have made "There is plenty of evidence that human consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning human brain though." with something more than handwaving. 
   
5. Please address my objections to first cause arguments, and see if you can create one that avoids the fallacious reasoning I anticipated, and that is a feature of every first cause argument I have seen. 
   

Again it is you who came to an ostensibly atheist forum to peddle your superstitous wares, one assumes you had a reason, and if ignoring all objections wasn't it, perhaps you can enlighten me?

(September 17, 2026 at 4:01 am)Jal Wrote:

(September 17, 2026 at 1:38 am)Sheldon Wrote: 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:



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

From the beginning, I simply expected the readers to be smart enough to understand the hypothetical nature of theodicy. You're really making me begin to regret that mistake. 

For me, being a CHRISTIAN, my theodicy is more than hypothetical, it's  what I currently believe. But HERE I expect mostly to address atheists on this thread.

Maybe I can put it in words clear to you. Here's my stance: if you are an atheist, please do NOT come to a belief in Yahweh based on anything I have written on this thread. That is the LAST thing I could want of you. Reason: The Inward Witness is pretty much the only way to come to an AUTHENTIC faith in Yahweh (excepting maybe one caveat). For example I don't believe that Mormons have an authentic faith.

If you get stuck in an inauthentic faith, your heart will likely be too hardened/resistant to the Inward Witness to ever be saved (because the Holy Spirit doesn't much like reaching into hardened hearts). 

So you can stop pretending that my OP was trying to push Yahweh on you. By all means, PLEASE DO NOT BELIEVE IN YAHWEH !!!!

Clear?
Probably not. In that case, I think I will have to throw in the towel, as you can't seem to comprehend anything I write.

Oh what a tangled we be weave etc etc etc, your duplicity is manifest, no matter how deep you dig this hole, but since this has ceased to be the comedy gold it was, I will throw you a bone - do you believe any deity deities exist, if so please present the best evidence you think you have for this belief?

The last sentence is again comedy gold, you see a problem but don't seem able to understand the cause.

(September 17, 2026 at 6:10 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

Quote:The Inward Witness is pretty much the only way to come to an AUTHENTIC faith in Yahweh (excepting maybe one caveat). For example I don't believe that Mormons have an authentic faith.

And Mormons believe your faith is not authentic. Go to a Mormon forum and sort this out, before you come back to to us who know both your faiths are useless. Even better: go to a Catholic forum after defeating the Mormons, then go bother some evangelicals, Protestants....so many other Christians, have fun! Well wait here 

The compulsion to always be right and the postulation of an "invincible belief" (Inward Witness) can reflect a personality style where the ego is heavily tied to an eccentric opinion to feel intellectually superior.

Remember?

He used a No true Scotsman fallacy of course, do we need to run a sweep on whether he understand his error in reasoning? I think not, lets start the pot with £5 then. Yes all those deities and versions of deities he disbelieves are real, he is very reticent about his criteria for disbelief, while hilariously throwing around accusations of bias and closed mindedness at others. 

NB I don't think he understands what open minded means, I may be tempted to bet another £5.

(September 17, 2026 at 6:10 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

Quote:The Inward Witness is pretty much the only way to come to an AUTHENTIC faith in Yahweh (excepting maybe one caveat). For example I don't believe that Mormons have an authentic faith.

And Mormons believe your faith is not authentic. Go to a Mormon forum and sort this out, before you come back to to us who know both your faiths are useless. Even better: go to a Catholic forum after defeating the Mormons, then go bother some evangelicals, Protestants....so many other Christians, have fun! Well wait here 

The compulsion to always be right and the postulation of an "invincible belief" (Inward Witness) can reflect a personality style where the ego is heavily tied to an eccentric opinion to feel intellectually superior.

Remember?

Relevance? The Inward Witness is invincible belief. There's nothing I can do about it. And if Mormons or Catholics attest to the same kind of experience, there is nothing I can do about that as well.  You write as though I had never considered these stupid objections.