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

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

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.

Yes that's a dishonest straw man you've made up, I feel that if I keep indulging your priggish arrogance then you will never learn. Time for some tough love.

(September 17, 2026 at 12:24 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(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.

Ok I guffawed at that one. For 2000 years Christian theologians have tried to explain how an immutable, immaterial God became man, and how an indivisible Trinity has three members (viz. the first one sits on a throne, the second one died on the cross, and the third one was outpoured at Pentecost).
My panpsychism easily resolves all these conundrums, and a few more. 

"It very clearly does add even more problems." I am not aware of any increase in problems. Admittedly every system faces some problems.

(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.

You never had a towel, just bare strident woo woo opinions. 

Explain, you are funny, making bare subjective claims doesn't explain reality, if it did theists could pray a plane into the air, or use their "inward witness" to offer tangible observations that reflected objective reality in the way methods like science have done. 

Panpsychism ffs, you couldn't even fkn spell it man.

(September 17, 2026 at 1:54 pm)Jal Wrote:

(September 17, 2026 at 12:24 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: 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.

Ok I guffawed at that one. For 2000 years Christian theologians have tried to explain how an immutable, immaterial God became man, and how an indivisible Trinity has three members (viz. the first one sits on a throne, the second one died on the cross, and the third one was outpoured at Pentecost).
My panpsychism easily resolves all these conundrums, and a few more. 

"It very clearly does add even more problems." I am not aware of any increase in problems. Admittedly every system faces some problems.

Panpsychism is unevidenced, unfalsifiable, untestable, and has no explanatory powers, so it resolves fuck all. Solve those problems, and it might become more than woo woo, but until then. 

Meanwhile there is substantial objective evidence to support human consciousness as an emergent property of a functioning human brain, another fact you seem keen to ignore.

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

(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.)

Funny how he denies your assessment of his posture and yet tacitly confirms it on every post.

(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.

My intention is to ignore your posts.

It clearly always was, I have been telling you that each time you've ignored what I have posted.

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

Belacqua needs the bogeyman of the "shallow, ignorant internet atheist" to cast himself as the "profound, well-read humanist."

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

(September 17, 2026 at 2:10 pm)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.)

Funny how he denies your assessment of his posture and yet tacitly confirms it on every post.

Assessment....  a straw man is what he offered. Well done on ignoring my posts, that was an impressive run. 

Now are you ready to honestly address objective criticisms of panpsychism, I have taught you to spell it relatively quickly, maybe you can learn to address the fact it is unevidenced, untestable, unfalsifiable, and has no explanatory powers, just raise your hand if it's going too fast.

(September 17, 2026 at 2:22 pm)Deesse23 Wrote:

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

Belacqua needs the bogeyman of the "shallow, ignorant internet atheist" to cast himself as the "profound, well-read humanist."

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

He could use his inward witness, this seems an infallible way to reinforce subjective wishful thinkimg..

(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?

He really does need to be called on his dishonest straw manning, it's quite risible, and he's cosying up to Bell, the master of straw manning, it can only get worse.