(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?

I can’t help but wonder how he’d respond if his ‘Inward Witness’ told him to take a shit on the salad bar.

Boru

(September 17, 2026 at 6:25 am)Sheldon Wrote:

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

Oh you don't take a stance on what the fundamental properties of matter are?
Great. Then you shall have no objections to panpsychism.

(September 17, 2026 at 6:36 am)Sheldon Wrote:

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

I was reticent on why I believe Yahweh and disbelieve other deities? That's your reading of me? As I never mentioned the Inward Witness? Or is this just another lie? 

I officially throw in the towel.

BTW, the terms "proof" and "evidence" can be used somewhat interchangeably. I confirmed it with a quick google.

So stop calling me a liar on that point.

(September 17, 2026 at 7:06 am)pid=\2257991 Wrote:

(September 17, 2026 at 6:36 am)Sheldon Wrote: 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.

I was reticent on why I believe Yahweh and disbelieve other deities? That's your reading of me? As I never mentioned the Inward Witness? Or is this just another lie? 

I officially throw in the towel.

BTW, the terms "proof" and "evidence" can be used somewhat interchangeably. I confirmed it with a quick google.

So stop calling me a liar on that point.

Boru

(September 17, 2026 at 6:59 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

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

I can’t help but wonder how he’d respond if his ‘Inward Witness’ told him to take a shit on the salad bar.

Boru

I hope you don't regard such scenarios as probative. Let's talk about it. 
As I explained earlier in this thread, the Inward Witness needs to raise your level of felt certainty high enough to obligate your conscience.
Mine's not at 100% certainty, but maybe 90%. As I understand it, God spoke to the prophets at 100% certainty, viz. Abraham called upon to sacrifice his son.

Anywho, if the Inward Witness convinced your conscience at 100% certainty to do that deed, do you think you should do it?
Before you respond, let me give you some inkling of what that might feel like:
(1) You'd feel 100% sure that abstaining would be PURE EVIL, probably the highest level of evil attainable at that moment.
(2) You'd probably feel the weight of the world on your shoulders, meaning that you'd probably feel CONVINCED that a significant number of people will goto hell if you disobey, including your own family members. (Based on my experience with Yahweh, I'm pretty sure He'd express His willingness to save a bunch of people from hell if you obey).

In other words, if you felt 100% sure you could save a significant number of people from hell, AND 100% sure no harm would result, what's the right action here?
Well that's why Abraham tried to sacrifice his son, by the way. I hope you're starting to get it.

(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.

(September 17, 2026 at 7:23 am)Jal Wrote:

(September 17, 2026 at 6:59 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I can’t help but wonder how he’d respond if his ‘Inward Witness’ told him to take a shit on the salad bar.

Boru

I hope you don't regard such scenarios as probative. Let's talk about it. 
As I explained earlier in this thread, the Inward Witness needs to raise your level of felt certainty high enough to obligate your conscience.
Mine's not at 100% certainty, but maybe 90%. As I understand it, God spoke to the prophets at 100% certainty, viz. Abraham called upon to sacrifice his son.

Anywho, if the Inward Witness convinced your conscience at 100% certainty to do that deed, do you think you should do it?
Before you respond, let me give you some inkling of what that might feel like:
(1) You'd feel 100% sure that abstaining would be PURE EVIL, probably the highest level of evil attainable at that moment.
(2) You'd probably feel the weight of the world on your shoulders, meaning that you'd probably feel CONVINCED that a significant number of people will goto hell if you disobey, including your own family members. (Based on my experience with Yahweh, I'm pretty sure He'd express His willingness to save a bunch of people from hell if you obey).

In other words, if you felt 100% sure you could save a significant number of people from hell, AND 100% sure no harm would result, what's the right action here?
Well that's why Abraham tried to sacrifice his son, by the way. I hope you're starting to get it.

So, there’s a 90% chance you’d take a shit on a salad bar? That’s more than a little disturbing. Good to know, though.

Boru

Edit: So much for the towel.

(September 17, 2026 at 7:23 am)Jal Wrote: ...Inward Witness...

I think the disconnect here is clear now.

Sheldon has a passionately held belief that for a reasonable person to believe in God, that person must have an articulable logical argument or set of evidence, which can be produced on demand to strangers on the Internet. 

I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong about that.

You've made it clear that this is not the reason you believe. I don't think he will stop asking you, however, or demanding that you must produce something along those lines, the way a traffic cop demands your driver's license. For him, the necessity for such evidence has the weight of something like Absolute Truth -- he can't imagine things being otherwise. 

So no agreement will be possible.

(I am not talking about my own beliefs here, just describing what I see as happening.)

(September 17, 2026 at 7:01 am)Jal Wrote:

(September 17, 2026 at 6:25 am)Sheldon Wrote: 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? 



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.

Oh you don't take a stance on what the fundamental properties of matter are?
Great. Then you shall have no objections to panpsychism.

Deflection and evasion, yet another straw man claim, and you have yet again failed to even pretend to address my question:
What evidence supports panpsychism? Give us the best you think you have?

It is abundantly clear you have none, only strident unevidenced claims, and subjective assumptions.

(September 17, 2026 at 7:06 am)Jal Wrote:

(September 17, 2026 at 6:36 am)Sheldon Wrote: 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.

I was reticent on why I believe Yahweh and disbelieve other deities? That's your reading of me? As I never mentioned the Inward Witness? Or is this just another lie? 

I officially throw in the towel.

BTW, the terms "proof" and "evidence" can be used somewhat interchangeably. I confirmed it with a quick google.

So stop calling me a liar on that point.

What is your criteria for disbelief was intended to establish whether there is any bias on your part, it's hard to imagine a more biased method than relying solely on personal subjective feelings / experience. So even when you're vague and evasive it screams bias. 

You throw whatever you want champ. 

And you're telling me this because???? I was very careful to ask you for evidence, you lied and claimed I'd asked for "absolute proof" and "proof" when I had not, and now you admit you don't understand the difference, and needed to Google them just to learn they are not NECESSARILY mutually exclusive, even though I never claimed nor implied they were, comedy gold again. 

You demonstrably lied, so physician heal thyself seems apropos...