Why not deism?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

There are many flavors of panpsychism. But not all flavors of panpsychism involve a cosmic mind.

Read this:
https://aeon.co/ideas/panpsychism-is-cra...bably-true

This one I am very very provisionally leaning to, so not very confidently. But nevertheless the exact type of panpsychism I am weakly adhering to is one where tables and rocks are not necessarily conscious (so slight disagreement with the article there), but one in which the basic elements of existence may have the starting point of consciousness (whatever that is).

And naturalism explains the origin of life pretty well actually, since life is simply a biological process explicable in terms of physical factors and processes. Even if we don't yet know the specifics of how life arose. Keep in mind life is not the same as consciousness. Bacteria are living organisms, but they are not counted as conscious entities.

As to why "something rather than nothing", we can say that something has to exist because absolute nothingness cannot be. Therefore, something necessarily exists. But that something could easily be in line with naturalism.

That article reminds me the Kantian phenomena/noumena distinction. We can see some things, but we don't know the intrinsic nature of things.

I'm curious how something that necessarily exists is in line with naturalism? Is that like the block theory of the universe?

@BrianSoddingBoru4 — what's the KSA?

'Kalam Stupid Argument', my pet name for the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Boru