Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Jal]

Have you considered whether or not gods actually explain human agency?

Again, have you read my OP?  Free will is innate to all matter. All aspects of consciousness are innate to matter. That is what panpychism means.

It's just a question of DEGREE.  For example, in an ordinary rock, NONE of the elements of consciousness/self-awareness have matured to any significant degree. It is negligibly conscious, as  far as I can see, hence I don't worry about inflicting pain on it.

[Jal]

Telltale again. Seems this is par for the course.

And you simply cannot spit out an original sentence. Or, did Mr. Rodgers teach you that new word today and get you all excited to use it?

When all you seem to have at your disposal are gratuitous and errorneous insults, I don't think any of us should feel impressed.

[Ravenshire]

And you simply cannot spit out an original sentence. Or, did Mr. Rodgers teach you that new word today and get you all excited to use it?

When all you seem to have at your disposal are gratuitous and errorneous insults, I don't think any of us should feel impressed.

You think I'm trying to impress you?!?

You think quite highly of yourself. As I said, I'm here for the LOLs.

[awty]

And you simply cannot spit out an original sentence. Or, did Mr. Rodgers teach you that new word today and get you all excited to use it?

When all you seem to have at your disposal are gratuitous and errorneous insults, I don't think any of us should feel impressed.

Are you an 'us'?

Since Ravenshire was responding to you specifically, there's no us to impress other than the cast of characters in your head.

[The Grand Nudger]

Leading me to suggest, again, that neither panspychism nor theism explain consciousness - or human agency.

[Jal]

...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.

But your words do indeed constitute one way of articulating the Problem of Evil.  Hence i responded with a theodicy.

Let me rephrase my theodicy.
1. God needed a bride desirable to Him, one endued with free will.
2. He commanded their conscience to pray and praise Him.
3. Instead we sinned, and even though He redeemed us, we are still going too far astray.
4. Hence He cannot meet our needs, because we don't meet His needs.
5. Hence the world looks like a place devoid of a benevolent God.

[Jal]

Leading me to suggest, again, that neither panspychism nor theism explain consciousness - or human agency.

Right. Agreed. That would be like someone asking me or you to explain the origin of matter. 

I don't think that requires an explanation. Something HAD to exist gratuitiously (unless you believe things create themselves out of nothing).

As a rule, Christians believe that an immaterial God exists gratuitiously. I am an exception to that rule. I believe that matter exists gratuiously, and God is just one piece of it.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not interested in being your boyfriends boyfriend.

Again...the problem you simply offering this theodicy up creates is that you're acknowledging that the world does indeed look like it would under what you call an atheistic reductionism.

Just like above, you've now explained that you don't think it's a problem if god and panpsychism don't explain consciousness....thus I fail to see why it would be a problem if "atheistic reductionism" also failed to explain it?

[Jal]

When all you seem to have at your disposal are gratuitous and errorneous insults, I don't think any of us should feel impressed.

You think I'm trying to impress you?!?

You think quite highly of yourself. As I said, I'm here for the LOLs.

No, I think you're smart enough to realize that your shallow posts won't fool me.

I think you are trying to put on a show for the other atheists monitoring this thread, hoping that if you shrug off my arguments with an air of superiority, they won't feel any need to address them.  I am hoping that such pretenses won't fool them.

[Jal]

I'm not interested in being your boyfriends boyfriend.

Again...the problem you simply offering this theodicy up creates is that you're acknowledging that the world does indeed look like it would under what you call an atheistic reductionism.

Just like above, you've now explained that you don't think it's a problem if god and panpsychism don't explain consciousness....thus I fail to see why it would be a problem if "atheistic reductionism" also failed to explain it?

"You're acknowledging that the world does indeed look like it would under what you call an atheistic reductionism." No, maybe an atheistic panpsychism.  An atheistic reductionism cannot even accomplish Natural Selection, for reasons I gave  (not to mention self-awareness). 

"Just like above, you've now explained that you don't think it's a problem if god and panpsychism don't explain consciousness....thus I fail to see why it would be a problem if "atheistic reductionism" also failed to explain it?"  Here's you're missing the point. Panpsychism explains it as an innate property. It's a question of how you are using the term "explain". I think you are equivocating.