(September 17, 2026 at 11:22 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(September 17, 2026 at 9:57 am)Jal Wrote: Huh? I objected to many movers? I objected to the notion that gravity can be defined as an intangible field and yet still be said to push or pull tangible matter.

That is logically incoherent.  My belief is that Yahweh's (hidden) physical hand does all that sort of pushing/pulling, which today we call gravity (and magnetism, electromagnetism, etc).

Again, we humans do plenty of pushing/pulling as well - I can take a step or throw a punch.

The point is that you are explicitly allowing yourself a move, assuming, that you are imposing as a constraint upon the determinist.  If you can assume that consciousness is fundamental, how can you deny the physicalist the option to assume that the intangible can affect the tangible without seeming the utmost hypocrite?  Your claim that it is logically impossible is a category error as it is you who has created the stumbling block by assuming that the intangible cannot impact the tangible with nothing to support your assumption other than defective analogies (Hume and false analogy problems) and personal incredulity (I cannot imagine it and my imagination is infallible, thus not!).  Logic has nothing to do with it.  You are the walking poster boy for hypocrisy and absurdity!

Self-locomotion is not collision-al. It is not two agents pushing/pulling each other, much less an intangible one pushing an tangible one.  It is simply one agent moving itself. 
To ask how this is possible is like asking why reality exists. Or why self-awareness exists. It just does.
Nobody "pushes" my thought-currents (my brain waves). Mostly I "just think" - my cerebral thoughts self-locomote.
When an externality DOES push on my brain waves, we call this an external sensation.

If self-locomotion were impossible, cosmogony itself would be impossible, for lack of a first mover.

(September 17, 2026 at 11:34 am)Jal Wrote:

(September 17, 2026 at 11:22 am)Angrboda Wrote: The point is that you are explicitly allowing yourself a move, assuming, that you are imposing as a constraint upon the determinist.  If you can assume that consciousness is fundamental, how can you deny the physicalist the option to assume that the intangible can affect the tangible without seeming the utmost hypocrite?  Your claim that it is logically impossible is a category error as it is you who has created the stumbling block by assuming that the intangible cannot impact the tangible with nothing to support your assumption other than defective analogies (Hume and false analogy problems) and personal incredulity (I cannot imagine it and my imagination is infallible, thus not!).  Logic has nothing to do with it.  You are the walking poster boy for hypocrisy and absurdity!

Self-locomotion is not collision-al. It is not two agents pushing/pulling each other, much less an intangible one pushing an tangible one.  It is simply one agent moving itself. 
To ask how this is possible is like asking why reality exists. Or why self-awareness exists. It just does.
Nobody "pushes" my thought-currents (my brain waves). Mostly I "just think" - my cerebral thoughts self-locomote.
When an externality DOES push on my brain waves, we call this an external sensation.

This is beside the point and thus a red herring. Answer the point itself or expose your poverty with more red herrings. You are accused.

(September 17, 2026 at 11:50 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(September 17, 2026 at 11:34 am)Jal Wrote: Self-locomotion is not collision-al. It is not two agents pushing/pulling each other, much less an intangible one pushing an tangible one.  It is simply one agent moving itself. 
To ask how this is possible is like asking why reality exists. Or why self-awareness exists. It just does.
Nobody "pushes" my thought-currents (my brain waves). Mostly I "just think" - my cerebral thoughts self-locomote.
When an externality DOES push on my brain waves, we call this an external sensation.

This is beside the point and thus a red herring.  Answer the point itself or expose your poverty with more red herrings.  You are accused.

I answered. In essence, I accused you of a category error, or perhaps a false analogy. You are analogizing self-locomotion to the issue of intangible-pushes-tangible.

You're mixing apples and oranges. It's a category mistake.

That's my answer. Sorry it wasn't the answer that you were looking for.

(September 17, 2026 at 10:16 am)Jal Wrote:

(September 17, 2026 at 8:12 am)Belacqua Wrote: 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.)

I was beginning to suspect the same thing.  At least it seemed clear that he has no concept of the Inward Witness.

You both have a penchant for making up straw man assumptions, while ignoring what is actually said, that much is clear. Jal's approach is more overtly one of arrogant stridency, bel's one of sneering condescending superiority, you both seem to have a very high opinion of yourselves as profound philosophers, that is not reflected in your posts.

I know what imagination is, if what you've imagined exists outside of your imagination, then you have failed to even try and demonstrate this, and your arguments are fallacious, but you just breeze past all such objections with handwaving and straw men claims, and all you have is a claim for personal experience, how is that any different to someone claiming they saw a mermaid when no one was around. 

What is it you want by bringing that to a public forum, of ostensibly atheist posters exactly? It's clear you're not seeking objective critical open minded responses.

(September 17, 2026 at 12:11 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

(September 17, 2026 at 10:16 am)Jal Wrote: I was beginning to suspect the same thing.  At least it seemed clear that he has no concept of the Inward Witness.

You both have a penchant for making up straw man assumptions, while ignoring what is actually said, that much is clear. 

I know what imagination is, if what you've imagined exists outside of your imagination, then you have failed to even try and demonstrate this,  and your arguments are fallacious, but you just breeze past all such objections with handwaving and straw men claims, and all you have is a claim for personal experience, how is that any different to someone claiming they saw a mermaid when no one was around. 

What is it you want by bringing that to a public forum, of ostensibly atheist posters exactly? It's clear your not seeking objective criticism.

Sorry guy, with you I already threw in the towel. Inasmuch I evidently lack sufficient explanatory powers to explain to you something as basic as the Inward Witness, I see no point in attempting to further communicate with you.  

My intention is to ignore your posts.

(September 17, 2026 at 12:15 pm)Jal Wrote:

(September 17, 2026 at 12:11 pm)Sheldon Wrote: You both have a penchant for making up straw man assumptions, while ignoring what is actually said, that much is clear. 

I know what imagination is, if what you've imagined exists outside of your imagination, then you have failed to even try and demonstrate this,  and your arguments are fallacious, but you just breeze past all such objections with handwaving and straw men claims, and all you have is a claim for personal experience, how is that any different to someone claiming they saw a mermaid when no one was around. 

What is it you want by bringing that to a public forum, of ostensibly atheist posters exactly? It's clear your not seeking objective criticism.

Sorry guy, with you I already threw in the towel. Inasmuch I evidently lack sufficient explanatory powers to explain to you something as basic as the Inward Witness, I see no point in attempting to further communicate with you.  

My intention is to ignore your posts.

A most ungracious capitulation.

Boru

(September 17, 2026 at 11:56 am)Jal Wrote:

(September 17, 2026 at 11:50 am)Angrboda Wrote: This is beside the point and thus a red herring.  Answer the point itself or expose your poverty with more red herrings.  You are accused.

I answered. In essence, I accused you of a category error, or perhaps a false analogy. You are analogizing self-locomotion to the issue of intangible-pushes-tangible.

You're mixing apples and oranges. It's a category mistake.

That's my answer. Sorry it wasn't the answer that you were looking for.

My post had nothing to do with self-locomotion so your claim that your reply concerning self-locomotion was cogent is simply false.

I didn't reference self-locomotion at all, so in replying about self-locomotion you werre just hallucinating something that you thought I'd said.

Stop making shit up about me opining about self-locomotion when I did nothing of the sort. Is lies and hypocrisy all that you are?

(September 17, 2026 at 10:05 am)Jal Wrote: And yes, panpsychism addresses several Christian conundrums effectively.

It doesn’t, but it very clearly does add even more problems. This is actually a common phenomena in deeply motivated reasoning. When we object focus we lose sight of the consequences of our “fix”. As a thing a brain with limited processing power and severely compromised ability does…basically a Tuesday….but why a ghost would glitch this way is a real mystery.

(September 17, 2026 at 12:20 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(September 17, 2026 at 11:56 am)Jal Wrote: I answered. In essence, I accused you of a category error, or perhaps a false analogy. You are analogizing self-locomotion to the issue of intangible-pushes-tangible.

You're mixing apples and oranges. It's a category mistake.

That's my answer. Sorry it wasn't the answer that you were looking for.

My post had nothing to do with self-locomotion so your claim that your reply concerning self-locomotion was cogent is simply false.

I didn't reference self-locomotion at all, so in replying about self-locomotion you werre just hallucinating something that you thought I'd said.

Stop making shit up about me opining about self-locomotion when I did nothing of the sort.  Is lies and hypocrisy all that you are?

You said, "The point is that you are explicitly allowing yourself a move, assuming, that you are imposing as a constraint upon the determinist.'"  I honestly thought you were talking about self-locomotion. My apologies.

Other than that, you again divest me of any basis for intangible-pushes-tangible complaint.  And here again I reply it's a tautology.
- The very definition of tangible matter is "collision-al substance" (participatory in physical impacts).
-  The very definition of intangible reality is non-collision-ality (non-participatory in physical impacts).
Therefore an intangible will have no physical impact on the tangible, as I earlier tried to illustrate by the hypothetically intangible golf club attempting to impact a golf ball.

This whole analysis is just as tautological as insisting that a square has four sides. So please stop saying that I have afforded no evidence or proof.