Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Jal]

The very first post gives copy/paste vibes...

What is that supposed to mean? Are you accusing me of plagiarism? You're saidly mistaken, if that's what you think. 

Historically I am the only overt Christian panpyschist that I know of,  although I suspect Andrew Murray was a covert one.  Tertullian was a materialist like me, but probably not a panpsychist.

[Jal]

[quote pid='2256469' dateline='1788121751']
[quote pid='2256465' dateline='1788121121']
Consciousness is an emergent property of a brain.
[/quote]

[/quote]
So dead particles suddenly become self-aware?  And  you accuse ME of philo dribble? Really?

[The Grand Nudger]

Is that more or less troubling than something "maturing" into self awareness?

-and yes, ofc I read your op..and everything since, about all of the ways you believe panpsychism supports theistic beliefs. I don't think it does, but in the end it doesn't matter..since I could be a panpsychist and an atheist. I could believe in pansychism and natural selection. I can believe in human agency and the indifference of the universe to hunger.

etc etc etc

[Ravenshire]

My post casts doubt on the touting of reductionistic atheism as a reasonable/ plausible position.

No, it doesn't. Try again, and this time, put in some effort.

[Jal]

…honestly…seems like a bigger problem for people who believe in a theistic god…..whole lot of hungry believers out there.  He busy or something?

I promised to elaborate on the Problem of Evil.  Now I'll present my theodicy. 

As noted in the OP, Yahweh was the first piece of matter to become fully self-aware.

He presumably predicted a problem: eventually, all pieces of matter would fully awaken like He did.

This overcrowding of persons in the Totality (the sum total of matter) would lead to a kind of ETERNAL HELL (everlasting suffering)

Why so? Consider planet Earth. There is endless vying for power and control, coupled with tyrants and bullies. Left to itself,then, earth offers no hope of everlasting peace, and no hope of halting suffering. Same problem with the Totality.

Therefore Yahweh made a decision. He vowed to train Himself, gradually morphing Himself (i.e. his huge and innumerable assortment of parts) into a quintessential Ruler and Judge of the entire Totality, enforcing justice everywhere.

He predicted it would take billions of years of hard work to acquire the learning and skills necessary to become an essentially perfect ruler, as well as to fully grow in patience, strength, annd holy zeal (i.e. passion for righteous behavior).

But He would begin this daunting task in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT.  The Bible says, "It is not good for man to be alone."  He feared that the loneliness might become too excruciating for him to persevere in His rigorous self-training. So He made the angels and, as His ultimate reward, He forepromised Himself His PREFERRED bride (Adam and Eve).


It doesn't help matters that Lucifer, Adam, Eve, and a number of angels fell into sin.  Here are some important elements of my theodicy:
(1) Paul says that all sinned in Adam. This can only mean that each of us is a piece of Adam's sin-stained soul. YOU are Adam. No child is born pure and innocent, therefore.
(2) Animal souls are pieces of fallen angels. No animal is born innocent.
(3) Hell is temporary. This is the Annhilationist position.  Like I said, God saved all of from a kind of everlasting hell (i.e. an overcrowded Totality).

Why can't God end hunger right now? Yahweh NEEDS us to pray to Him (we haven't done that sufficiently) before He can fully meet our needs.
If he ends suffering, few people will pray to Him, few will seek Him.

He needs us to pray and praise Him because:
1. He is finite. Having struggled toward accomplishments ineffable orders of magnitude beyond our own, He could snap, i.e. suffer a nervous breakdown, if we only ignore Him and/or insult him. We must praise Him. A Christian is somewhat inclined to do so, because God imposes this rule on our conscience. 
2. He promised Himself (His huge array of constituent parts) a bride that prays to Him. A holy God cannot go back on His promise.

[Jal]

Is that more or less troubling than something "maturing" into self awareness?

-and yes, ofc I read your op..and everything since, about all of the ways you believe panpsychism supports theistic beliefs.  I don't think it does, but in the end it doesn't matter..since I could be a panpsychist and an atheist.  I could believe in pansychism and natural selection.  I can believe in human agency and the indifference of the universe to hunger.

etc etc etc

Um...yes that's what I said. Not sure why you think these words are a rebuttal.

My OP was entitled Natural Selection Seems Insufficient.  Many atheists act as they neeed neither God nor panpsychism. My post is simply arguing that you need at least one or the other. AND, if you only choose an atheistic panpsychism, it's still implausible COMPARED to (i.e. RELATIVE to) a theistic panpsychism, because you probably end up postulating seemingly bizarre stuff like immaterial forces.  So you would still have a lot of work cut out for you, from a philosophical standpoint.

[Jal]

My post casts doubt on the touting of reductionistic atheism as a reasonable/ plausible position.

No, it doesn't. Try again, and this time, put in some effort.

Saying No is not a rebuttal of my arguments.

[Ravenshire]

No, it doesn't. Try again, and this time, put in some effort.

Saying No is not a rebuttal of my arguments.

You didn't make any cogent arguments. You flung some poo at the walls in hopes it would stick.

I'm not here to rebut your arguments you might accidentally make, they're self-rebutting. I'm here to point up how silly you look when making them.

[Jal]

Saying No is not a rebuttal of my arguments.

You didn't make any cogent arguments. You flung some poo at the walls in hopes it would stick.

I'm not here to rebut your arguments you might accidentally make, they're self-rebutting. I'm here to point up how silly you look when making them.

None of my arguments were cogent? Then you should have easily refuted them. Fact is, you did no such thing.  Tell tale sign.

[The Grand Nudger]

...but the problem of evil doesn't mean anything to me Jal? I asked if there was some specific incompetence that explains why it looks the same whether gods exist or they don't and you say that there's just such a thing. You have a theodicy for explaining why it looks like the world operates exactly as you say it does not.

My own hypothesis is that the universe is the way it looks. There are no personal and intervening dieties, and the universe is indifferent to the sorts of things that motivate me.