The Scripture Is False And The Biblical God Is Dead.

[Authari]

So I assume many Atheists on here believe that the Bible is 'made' up. Which is correct. Every single Book of Faith was crafted by man. And every single one of them purely made stuff up about God. Jesus? Muhammad? Buddha? Zarathustra? All of them did not exist, with maybe an exception of Zarathustra. Muhammad an unlettered Prophet would have been unable to read the hidden revelations of the Torah and the New Testament. Yet the Quran produces evidence and expands upon the Revelation in The Bible.

Ah yes. So with that out of the way. Since we I a theist, and you atheists both know that the Bible, as well as the other Books of Faith, are constructed by man. What stops you from believing in a Cosmic God? A universal sentience? I mean most of you on here believe in the Big Bang Theory so its not like you aren't used to believing in something absolutely ridiculous. Why not believe in something that has actual evidence for it? Like a Cosmic Sentience.

What I asserted before that Energy is the Essence of Sentience is although original from my point of view has actually been proposed more than 2,000 years ago. So there's actually a LOT of philosophy on this, and you who, decided to rebel against your Creator to seek freedom to live a life relegated to things of the flesh, do not account for anything philosophically speaking because you wanted to disprove God. You never tried to Prove God and will actively deny His Existence because you are filled with the Sin of the Flesh and the Black Miasma of Hatred.

from the wikipedia on this

In the philosophy of mind, panpsychism (/pænˈsaɪkɪzəm/) is the view that the mind or a mindlike aspect is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality.[1] It is also described as a theory that "the mind is a fundamental feature of the world which exists throughout the universe."[2] It is one of the oldest philosophical theories, and has been ascribed to philosophers including Thales, Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, William James,[3] Alfred North Whitehead, Bertrand Russell, and Galen Strawson.[1] In the 19th century, panpsychism was the default philosophy of mind in Western thought, but it saw a decline in the mid-20th century with the rise of logical positivism.[3][4] Recent interest in the  and developments in the fields of neuroscience, psychology, and quantum physics have revived interest in panpsychism in the 21st century.

[Mister Agenda]

Lack of evidence. Proposing something has no bearing on whether the something is real or not.

[Authari]

Lack of evidence. Proposing something has no bearing on whether the something is real or not.

There's a lot of evidence to prove energy is sentient. :T You're claiming God does not exist, its your job to prove that he does not. And I'm not talking about the Biblical God, I have shattered the Bible. So now without the Bible prove to me God does not exist, you can't do it.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I always find it amusing when theists selectively cite the part of a Wikipedia article which appears to support their pet biases, while studiously ignoring the ‘Criticisms’ section. It’s a giggle and no mistake.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Lack of evidence. Proposing something has no bearing on whether the something is real or not.

There's a lot of evidence to prove energy is sentient. :T You're claiming God does not exist, its your job to prove that he does not. And I'm not talking about the Biblical God, I have shattered the Bible. So now without the Bible prove to me God does not exist, you can't do it.

If there’s a lot of evidence to prove energy is sentient, when can we expect you to provide some?

It isn’t anyone’s job to prove non-existence.

You’re very stupid.

Boru

[Jehanne]

Lack of evidence. Proposing something has no bearing on whether the something is real or not.

There's a lot of evidence to prove energy is sentient. :T You're claiming God does not exist, its your job to prove that he does not. And I'm not talking about the Biblical God, I have shattered the Bible. So now without the Bible prove to me God does not exist, you can't do it.

Are you claiming that electrons have free will?

[Authari]

I always find it amusing when theists selectively cite the part of a Wikipedia article which appears to support their pet biases, while studiously ignoring the ‘Criticisms’ section. It’s a giggle and no mistake.

Boru

I shall destroy this claim then. I like how you automatically went to the 'arguments against' section of wikipedia, as if you wanted to assure yourself that there was no possible way this could be true and were desperately grasping at any straws you could to reinforce your degrading beliefs.

One criticism of panpsychism is that it cannot be empirically tested.[9] A corollary of this criticism is that panpsychism has no predictive power. Tononi and Koch write: "Besides claiming that matter and mind are one thing, [panpsychism] has little constructive to say and offers no positive laws explaining how the mind is organized and works."[33]

John Searle has alleged that panpsychism's unfalsifiability goes deeper than run-of-the-mill untestability: it is unfalsifiable because "It does not get up to the level of being false. It is strictly speaking meaningless because no clear notion has been given to the claim."[65] The need for coherence and clarification is accepted by David Skrbina, a proponent of panpsychism.[18]: 15 

Many proponents of panpsychism base their arguments not on empirical support but on panpsychism's theoretical virtues. Chalmers says that while no direct evidence exists for the theory, neither is there direct evidence against it, and that "there are indirect reasons, of a broadly theoretical character, for taking the view seriously."[9] Notwithstanding Tononi and Koch's criticism of panpsychism, they state that it integrates consciousness into the physical world in a way that is "elegantly unitary."[33]

A related criticism is what seems to many to be the theory's bizarre nature.[9] Goff dismisses this objection:[1] though he admits that panpsychism is counterintuitive, he notes that Einstein's and Darwin's theories are also counterintuitive. "At the end of the day," he writes, "you should judge a view not for its cultural associations but by its explanatory power."[29]

That's not even including the Observer Effect

As you can see it actually can be measured. Our observations and our energy will effect the energy around us. Because it is sentient and can grasp our intentions.

Problem of mental causation
Further information: Problem of mental causation
Philosophers such as Chalmers have argued that theories of consciousness should be capable of providing insight into the brain and mind to avoid the problem of mental causation.[9][104] If they fail to do that, the theory will succumb to epiphenomenalism,[104] a view commonly criticised as implausible or even self-contradictory.[84][105][106] Proponents of panpsychism (especially those with neutral monist tendencies) hope to bypass this problem by dismissing it as a false dichotomy; mind and matter are two sides of the same coin, and mental causation is merely the extrinsic description of intrinsic properties of mind.[107] Robert Howell has argued that all causal functions are still accounted for dispositionally (i.e., in terms of the behaviors described by science), leaving phenomenality causally inert.[108] He concludes, "This leaves us once again with epiphenomenal qualia, only in a very surprising place."[108] Neutral monists reject such dichotomous views of mind-body interaction.[107][45]

We have already proved in the previous criticism that, our intentions effect things outside of our brain. 

Combination problem
The combination problem (which is related to the binding problem) can be traced to William James,[11] but was given its present name by William Seager in 1995.[109][11] The problem arises from the tension between the seemingly irreducible nature of consciousness and its ubiquity. If consciousness is ubiquitous, then every atom (or every bit, depending on the theory) has a minimal level of it. How then, as Keith Frankish puts it, do these "tiny consciousnesses combine" to create larger conscious experiences such as "the twinge of pain" he feels in his knee?[110] This objection has garnered significant attention,[11][110][1] and many have attempted to answer it.[93][111] None of the proposed answers has gained widespread acceptance.[11]

Concepts related to this problem include the classical sorites paradox (aggregates and organic wholes), mereology (the philosophical study of parts and wholes), Gestalt psychology, and Leibniz's concept of the vinculum substantiale.

I see no problem with this, its simply a matter of amplification. Also it is very interesting that energy is able to carry the information of 'feelings of pain' to our brain. But mostly its just a matter of amplification, the more is connected the more 'memory' it is capable of storing and the like.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I always find it amusing when theists selectively cite the part of a Wikipedia article which appears to support their pet biases, while studiously ignoring the ‘Criticisms’ section. It’s a giggle and no mistake.

Boru

I shall destroy this claim then. I like how you automatically went to the 'arguments against' section of wikipedia, as if you wanted to assure yourself that there was no possible way this could be true and were desperately grasping at any straws you could to reinforce your degrading beliefs.

One criticism of panpsychism is that it cannot be empirically tested.[9] A corollary of this criticism is that panpsychism has no predictive power. Tononi and Koch write: "Besides claiming that matter and mind are one thing, [panpsychism] has little constructive to say and offers no positive laws explaining how the mind is organized and works."[33]

John Searle has alleged that panpsychism's unfalsifiability goes deeper than run-of-the-mill untestability: it is unfalsifiable because "It does not get up to the level of being false. It is strictly speaking meaningless because no clear notion has been given to the claim."[65] The need for coherence and clarification is accepted by David Skrbina, a proponent of panpsychism.[18]: 15 

Many proponents of panpsychism base their arguments not on empirical support but on panpsychism's theoretical virtues. Chalmers says that while no direct evidence exists for the theory, neither is there direct evidence against it, and that "there are indirect reasons, of a broadly theoretical character, for taking the view seriously."[9] Notwithstanding Tononi and Koch's criticism of panpsychism, they state that it integrates consciousness into the physical world in a way that is "elegantly unitary."[33]

A related criticism is what seems to many to be the theory's bizarre nature.[9] Goff dismisses this objection:[1] though he admits that panpsychism is counterintuitive, he notes that Einstein's and Darwin's theories are also counterintuitive. "At the end of the day," he writes, "you should judge a view not for its cultural associations but by its explanatory power."[29]

That's not even including the Observer Effect

As you can see it actually can be measured. Our observations and our energy will effect the energy around us. Because it is sentient and can grasp our intentions.

Problem of mental causation
Further information: Problem of mental causation
Philosophers such as Chalmers have argued that theories of consciousness should be capable of providing insight into the brain and mind to avoid the problem of mental causation.[9][104] If they fail to do that, the theory will succumb to epiphenomenalism,[104] a view commonly criticised as implausible or even self-contradictory.[84][105][106] Proponents of panpsychism (especially those with neutral monist tendencies) hope to bypass this problem by dismissing it as a false dichotomy; mind and matter are two sides of the same coin, and mental causation is merely the extrinsic description of intrinsic properties of mind.[107] Robert Howell has argued that all causal functions are still accounted for dispositionally (i.e., in terms of the behaviors described by science), leaving phenomenality causally inert.[108] He concludes, "This leaves us once again with epiphenomenal qualia, only in a very surprising place."[108] Neutral monists reject such dichotomous views of mind-body interaction.[107][45]

We have already proved in the previous criticism that, our intentions effect things outside of our brain. 

Combination problem
The combination problem (which is related to the binding problem) can be traced to William James,[11] but was given its present name by William Seager in 1995.[109][11] The problem arises from the tension between the seemingly irreducible nature of consciousness and its ubiquity. If consciousness is ubiquitous, then every atom (or every bit, depending on the theory) has a minimal level of it. How then, as Keith Frankish puts it, do these "tiny consciousnesses combine" to create larger conscious experiences such as "the twinge of pain" he feels in his knee?[110] This objection has garnered significant attention,[11][110][1] and many have attempted to answer it.[93][111] None of the proposed answers has gained widespread acceptance.[11]

Concepts related to this problem include the classical sorites paradox (aggregates and organic wholes), mereology (the philosophical study of parts and wholes), Gestalt psychology, and Leibniz's concept of the vinculum substantiale.

I see no problem with this, its simply a matter of amplification. Also it is very interesting that energy is able to carry the information of 'feelings of pain' to our brain. But mostly its just a matter of amplification, the more is connected the more 'memory' it is capable of storing and the like.

Actually, I didn’t ‘jump’ to anything at all. I didn’t even look at the article you linked - I’m familiar enough with panpsychism that I didn’t need to.

You haven’t proved or demonstrated anything about mentation affecting physical matter (the video doesn’t establish what you seem to think it does), and you haven’t disposed of the objections to your nonsense, you’ve simply rejected them.

You remain very stupid.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

What stops you from believing in a Cosmic God?

Pretty simple, really.  I didn't believe in any gods when I was born, and haven't met any since.

A universal sentience? 

Same deal.  So, imagine, if we also fail to provide observational support, any description of the practical mechanics, and poorly thought out terms on top of that. I do like to think that people try to adhere to some criteria of realizability when it comes to the gods they believe in. That, even if I don't end up believing in whatever they believe in, they're talking about some belief I could understand. So, what would a universal sentience look like to you, and how would it work? Quick and dirty, nuts and bolts. Like describing a bird. "What is bird?".

[Fake Messiah]

I mean most of you on here believe in the Big Bang Theory so its not like you aren't used to believing in something absolutely ridiculous.

Why is believing in something observable and in tune with the laws of physics, like the big bang, ridiculous?
Do you know that the Nobel prize was awarded for the research of the Big Bang Theory?