(September 18, 2026 at 2:50 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote:

(September 18, 2026 at 2:01 pm)Jal Wrote: Ultimately, God doesn't allow any injustice. 
In my theodicy, YOU are Adam (that's what Paul implied). 
Panpsychism allows such, you are a piece of his sin-stained soul.
No one is born innocent. Yahweh would never allow an innocent person to be raped. 
(Perhaps with the exception of voluntary atonement, as already suggested).

So, in your mind, children are not innocent?

Correct. Why would Yahweh allow an innocent child to suffer?
And how could Paul be any more clear, when he said that we all sinned in Adam?

(September 18, 2026 at 2:20 pm)Jal Wrote:

(September 18, 2026 at 2:15 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Strawman. I didn’t say I want ‘NO JUSTICE’. I said mercy is preferable to justice.

And stop projecting - we’re not all as bloodthirsty as you.

Boru

Like how much percent justice do you want? Either way, God's can't win.  For example if you say you want 21% justice, another person will want 35%. Like I said, He cannot please everyone. The question is why should your vote outweigh somebody else's.  I don't think it should. In which case you don't have much solid ground for faulting Yahweh's proportioning of justice.

If we’re talking about divine justice, I’m looking at 0% as a legitimate number. If we’re talking about earthly justice, 50% sounds about right.

As for ‘solid ground’, the Bible frequently describes God as merciful. Either he is or he isn’t.

Boru

(September 18, 2026 at 2:53 pm)Jal Wrote:

(September 18, 2026 at 2:50 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: So, in your mind, children are not innocent?

Correct. Why would Yahweh allow an innocent child to suffer?
And how could Paul be any more clear, when he said that we all sinned in Adam?

That might be the most idiotic justification for both infant damnation and child murder I’ve ever heard.

Boru

(September 18, 2026 at 9:59 am)Jal Wrote: Traditional theology can't hold a candle to panpsychism.

Unevidenced magic is unevidenced magic, meh...

(September 18, 2026 at 12:06 pm)Jal Wrote:

(September 18, 2026 at 11:55 am)Angrboda Wrote: Your original formulation was quite different from the formulation that you have shifted to now.  To wit:

As already noted, the definitions of tangible and intangible concern our ability to touch the thing.   That is one principle.  And now you have posited a principle that emphasizes collidability, in line with your focus on insisting things behave like billiard balls and physically contact to compel motion.  But this is not a variation on the first principle you gave, but a sub-class of it.  It's true enough for collisionable objects but the initial principle did not focus solely on billiard-ball-like interactions but simply one thing affecting another thing.  And the reason for the disconnect is simple.  

Invisible forces do not act by physical interaction, by any billiard-ball-like direct contact imparting force to another object.  So while your revised principle is true enough on its own, it does not cover intangible objects whose interaction with other things is without contact, totally unlike billiard balls interacting.  So the intangible includes a class of things which are nowhere covered in your revised principle as that principle only deals with physical contact imparting force.  But this is not the way forces like gravity and the strong nuclear force work.  They impart force without physical contact.  Thus this revised principle of your deals with a hypothetical class of intangibles whose impartation of force occurs through physical contact.  Thus your intangibles are not the same thing as the intangibles under discussion and are only covered by the original principle.  

Since your revised principle having to do with collisions is irrelevant to them, as they are not imparting force through contact, tautological though it is, it is a red herring of sorts, a strawman that is suggesting that the intangibles in question can only impart force by contact.  But this is not what their proponents are suggesting, so it is a misrepresentation of the question.  It is not, can an intangible impart force via a collision, but rather can an intangible impart force without collision, as that is how these intangible forces operate.  

Thus while your statement is tautologically true, that is of no support for the position that gravity and such cannot impart force to the tangible as your tautology doesn't forbid or allow the contactless operation of this forces.  So while true enough in its domain, it is irrelevant to the intangibles in question.   For that we must look to the original form of the principle, and that is not a tautology but a mere, arbitrary assertion.  Thus it is not evidenced or supported, and your revised principle is a red herring having nothing to do with the actual case.

The same problem infects your analogy in imaging that the intangible forces operate through contact.  But this is not the way these forces impart force.  Thus the analogy is completely disanalogous.



As noted above, your tautology has nothing to do with the actual case and is nothing more than a straw man.  Your tilting at windmills of your own creation tells us nothing about the actual case and are quite irrelevant.  They neither support nor disaffirm the actual case and so they are mute in terms of providing evidence or support.  Thus I have correctly identified that you have not provided any evidence or support and will continue to do so until you provide actual support and evidence relevant to the case.  This tautology of yours is nothing but a worthless digression which is silent on the question at issue.

Intangible fields imparting forces to tangible matter through non-contact.  Yeah right. (And they accuse me of being the one to believe in the magical/supernatural). 

So these invisible forces are like magic? This is just another of your bullshit analogies. How is gravity unlike magic? Let me count the ways.



So invisible forces are unlike magic and this is just you making another false analogy. Gravity is unlike magic and you comparing it to magic is just you making another apples to oranges comparison. Every schoolchild knows such comparisons are worth nothing and the conclusions drawn are nonsense.

(September 18, 2026 at 12:06 pm)Jal Wrote: The definitions and tautologies should apprise you that such is logically incoherent. You see, truth is what it is. It doesn't frankly care that you WANT to believe everything that your science professors taught. Some of it just isn't true.   This is where definitions and tautologies can be quite handy - they can be a lighthouse when navigating possible nonsense.

Definitions and tautologies are germane when they are relevant. When they don't deal with the subject at hand, they are just red herrings worth nothing. Let's review how your definitions and tautologies have failed to hold up.

1. You objected essentially that, "If tangible forces involve collidable objects, and intengible objects are non-collidable, then an intagible thing cannot impart a force upon a tangible object by collision." True enough, but noone is supposing that intangible forces like gravity impart force through collision, so your tautology while true, does not address the actual case and is thus irrelevant. Your protestations that it is true utterly miss the point in that, even if it is true, it doesn't feed the bulldog. This is an example of ignoratio elenchi. Noone but you is talkling about collisions so you're just talking to yourself like a madman.

2. You objected that an increasingly less physical golf club would cease to be able to impact the ball and thus impart no force at all. But again, the force is imparteed not by impact, but by action at a distance. So once again you've presented an analogy that is unlike the thing you are analogizing. It thus has no force and is apples to oranges bullshit.

3. You likened gravity to a father pulling his daughter into the water from a distance. Absurd. But daughters and fathers are tangible objects who when they do impart force, do it through physical contact. So this is totally unlike the thing you are analogizing and thus another false analogy. Comparing apples to oranges tells you nothing about either apples and oranges. Analogizing the intangible as if it were tangible only tells you that you are inept and incompetent.

(September 18, 2026 at 12:06 pm)Jal Wrote: I stand by the tautology. An intangible reality won't push a tangible one.
If a sphere of (allegedly) intangible reality manages to push or pull a tangible mass, you'll need to revise the allegation. That sphere is tangible.

You really do have reading comprehension issues. As I patiently explained, nobody is suggesting intangible forces impart force through physical pushing. So this objection is beside the point. It is not a question of you standing by your tautologies but whether your tautologies stand in the way of the intangible imparting force. They do not. Because intangibles impart force in a way that isn't covered by your tautology, thus your tautology is moot.

(September 18, 2026 at 2:22 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(September 18, 2026 at 2:12 pm)Jal Wrote: I might be mistaken, that is, perhaps the Bible isn't true.  
But I'm not "confused".  There is an internal consistency to the Bible, and therefore to my thinking.

Dishonest dickheads, lying bastards, like Bart Ehrman mislead both Christians and atheists. 

Under the guise of 'objective scholarship', people like him primarily look to atheist and/or liberal scholars for research. These scholars ascribe to a completely different hermeneutic than Christians influenced by the Inward Witness.

For the atheist, a textual discrepancy is often presumed automatically a contradiction.  The Christian takes into consideration more possibilities. In the four gospels, for example, we understand each of the writers to select their material according to their distinctive purviews, emphases, agendas, intended curriculum, etc. 

So one writer might mention Mary at the tomb.
Another writer might mention angels at the tomb.
Another writer might mention Simon Peter at the tomb.

These accounts are usually complementary, not contradictory. But that's not what you'll hear from a lying piece of shit  like Bart Erhman.

(September 18, 2026 at 10:19 am)Jal Wrote:

(September 18, 2026 at 10:14 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Still gibberish in a panpsychic world Jal.  If gibberish is a problem for your superstitious beliefs…I’ve got some bad news for you….

Superstitious? You're a liar. I have defined Yahweh as simply one of us - the first of us to evolve. He has no magical powers, no supernatural abilities, as I have defined Him.

Yet more than once, you've tried to associate my views to supernatural magic. Which makes you a bald-faced liar.

"Superstitious is an adjective that describes a belief in luck, magic, or the supernatural that is not based on reason, facts, or science"

That covers all of your superstitious bullshit...You calling anyone a liar is just more comedy gold, and unlike your tantrum here, I can evidence your duplicity, I dare you to ask for it...

Liar liar pants on fire, is about your level I think, and wholly accurate...

No need to pretend to respond, we all know by now that you have no honest  interest in objectively debating your woo woo unevidenced superstitious claims... 

Try again champ, and you calling anyone a liar is opening a whole new level of irony.

I would be surprised you expected magic book to be consistent at all if I didn’t already know you believe it’s a magic book Jal.

Meanwhile, back here on Earth A the book the rest of us are reading is chock full of inconsistencies, narrative discontinuity, and anachronism. There a whole field of study dedicated to it.

Furthermore, as I already mentioned, I don't need Scripture to be inerrant in all these minor details.
That said, it's actually hard to find contradictions, if one is reading it charitably, as a Christian would.

(September 18, 2026 at 3:17 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(September 18, 2026 at 12:06 pm)Jal Wrote: Intangible fields imparting forces to tangible matter through non-contact.  Yeah right. (And they accuse me of being the one to believe in the magical/supernatural). 

So these invisible forces are like magic?  This is just another of your bullshit analogies.  How is gravity unlike magic?  Let me count the ways.



So invisible forces are unlike magic and this is just you making another false analogy.  Gravity is unlike magic and you comparing it to magic is just you making another apples to oranges comparison.  Every schoolchild knows such comparisons are worth nothing and the conclusions drawn are nonsense.

(September 18, 2026 at 12:06 pm)Jal Wrote: The definitions and tautologies should apprise you that such is logically incoherent. You see, truth is what it is. It doesn't frankly care that you WANT to believe everything that your science professors taught. Some of it just isn't true.   This is where definitions and tautologies can be quite handy - they can be a lighthouse when navigating possible nonsense.

Definitions and tautologies are germane when they are relevant.  When they don't deal with the subject at hand, they are just red herrings worth nothing.  Let's review how your definitions and tautologies have failed to hold up.

1.  You objected essentially that, "If tangible forces involve collidable objects, and intengible objects are non-collidable, then an intagible thing cannot impart a force upon a tangible object by collision."  True enough, but noone is supposing that intangible forces like gravity impart force through collision, so your tautology while true, does not address the actual case and is thus irrelevant.  Your protestations that it is true utterly miss the point in that, even if it is true, it doesn't feed the bulldog.  This is an example of ignoratio elenchi.  Noone but you is talkling about collisions so you're just talking to yourself like a madman.

2. You objected that an increasingly less physical golf club would cease to be able to impact the ball and thus impart no force at all.  But again, the force is imparteed not by impact, but by action at a distance.  So once again you've presented an analogy that is unlike the thing you are analogizing.  It thus has no force and is apples to oranges bullshit.

3. You likened gravity to a father pulling his daughter into the water from a distance.  Absurd.  But daughters and fathers are tangible objects who when they do impart force, do it through physical contact.  So this is totally unlike the thing you are analogizing and thus another false analogy.  Comparing apples to oranges tells you nothing about either apples and oranges.  Analogizing the intangible as if it were tangible only tells you that you are inept and incompetent.

(September 18, 2026 at 12:06 pm)Jal Wrote: I stand by the tautology. An intangible reality won't push a tangible one.
If a sphere of (allegedly) intangible reality manages to push or pull a tangible mass, you'll need to revise the allegation. That sphere is tangible.

You really do have reading comprehension issues.  As I patiently explained, nobody is suggesting intangible forces impart force through pushing.  So this objection is beside the point.  It is not a question of you standing by your tautologies but whether your tautologies stand in the way of the intangible imparting force.  They do not.  Because intangibles impart force in a way that isn't covered by your tautology, thus your tautology is moot.

We'll just to have to agree to disagree. As I cited Newton on gravity earlier, he indicated that to literally believe in a force acting across a vacuum is idiocy. 

I myself would call it magical/supernatural. I don't believe in magic. 

Sorry we just don't see eye to eye here.