Is Panpsychism evidence for God?

Debate Room
61

To be fair, a) I was very specific about which ideas I was labelling idiotic, and b) they demonstrably were idiotic, and c) I took the time to honestly address them and explain why. of course you’re not blameless here, by being so dishonest in evading responses, clipping quotes to misrepresent them, endless straw men, and you were strident and condescending from the very first. You posited your thread title as a question, but nothing you posted suggested you were interested in objectively assessing the answers you recieved.

If I can be bothered I might dig out some quotes to support these facts.

Here a perfect example of your dishonesty:

I asked that in the the 3rd post in this thread, 61 posts and several requests later, and you have not even pretended to answer honestly, by either retracting the claim or offering a credible scientific source. You even misrepresented what I’d said more than once with straw men.

1 Like
62

I hate to see people banned.

I occasionally have problems communicating because of my autism . . . so what I don’t understand is where the lack of civility comes from.

It seems that a lot of theists start civil, and the things get progressively more acrimonious until something like this happens.

What is it about the dynamics of this process that I don’t understand? Sometimes, I really hate the social incompetence that comes from my autism.

1 Like
63

I have sometimes insulted public figures (like Pat Robertson) that I really don’t like, but I’m mostly civil here, right?

Where does the acrimony come from?

1 Like
64

Sent you a DM…
:slightly_smiling_face:

20 characters

1 Like
65

I notice that some posters exhibit faux civility, but their posts are disrespectful in less obvious ways. They clip posts into short quotes to misrepresent context, rather than for brevity, they ignore expansive and specific criticisms of their arguments, sometimes repeatedly, just rolling past with blind repetition. They combine faux civility with less than subtle condescension, Talking down to posters as if those posters have failed to understand their arguments, using simple analogies for the same reason, when it is obvious those posters have fully understood their arguments, and just recognise they are weak or poorly reasoned, and have explained why.

Now it’s not always possible to be sure whether this behaviour is deliberate to provoke a response (trolling), or whether someone is so emotionally invested in a belief they are simply very closed minded. I have noticed that many posters don’t understand that no one needs to respect arguments or claims, or that this differs substantially from simple ad hominem, I suppose because being emotionally invested in a belief to that extent blurs the line for them between themselves and the beliefs they are peddling.

I have also found that poster who present such arguments, but whose grasp of language sometimes falls below what is required to fully understand critical responses, tend to be the ones who then make condescending remarks, as if their arguments can’t really be wrong, so the only reason they can fathom is that the person who is criticising those arguments, doesn’t fully understand them.

Some people simply don’t see the value in, or often understand critical thinking, they’ve latched onto an argument or belief, and nothing will change their minds.

of course when other posters see this sorts of behaviour, no one here I think likes apologists preaching at them, they tend to be slightly more blunt in their criticisms as soon as this is apparent. That aside we all have our own styles, and one thing I always liked about this site, was that the moderators treat people like adults, if someone says something dishonest or stupid, people are allowed to point it out, as they should be, because honesty is essential for proper debate. Whilst nobody is encouraged to be rude, the priority is focused on honest debate, unlike other sites I’ve tried, which to me is absurd, as I find being dishonest more disrespectful than the including the odd vituperation in one’s posts.

1 Like
66

Panpsychism is unfalsifiable, that alone is enough reason for me to withhold belief, it is also unsupported by any objective evidence, again on its own, this is sufficient reason for me to remain dubious. It also has no explanatory powers of course, so the fact that some philosophers reasons it answers some questions we currently don’t have answers for, just seems like a typical “god of the gaps” polemic, and these nearly always involve argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, as we can see here of course, where the arguments presented use that fallacy more than once.

As for the debate premise (in the title) I have yet to see a sound argument, and certainly no objective evidence that panpsychism remotely evidences any deity, let alone specific monotheistic religions, and the deities they imagine to be real.

2 Likes
67

If one’s posts contains something demonstrably idiotic, and it is explained why, rather than the generic ad hominem which you’re misrepresenting it as here, then yes that’s fine, and if someone has made a misogynistic ad hominem comment aimed at a poster, rather than addressing the post content, as you did, then I’d say those responses were acceptable.

If you honestly address people’s post content, they will generally be polite, though you seem to be making a common mistake among people who are emotionally invested in the beliefs they’re offering, by confusing respecting people, which is a given (as long as they reciprocate - see above), with respecting what they say, which no one is obliged to respect at all. Attacking post content is reasonable, even necessary, in a debate. Attacking people as you did, is not.

And yes, everyone here is treated the same, anyone who posted as you did, would receive the reaction you got. Perhaps you’d prefer a saccharine faux civility, but personally I like it here because the moderators focus on honest debate, and step in only when hate speech or bigotry is manifest, and even then people get fair warning before being censured, as of course you were by @CyberLN in this instance, who gave you ample opportunity to withdraw the misogynistic remark, and apologise for it.

The only necessity to apologise for calling a claim idiotic, is if one has made the claim erroneously, or in an attempt to use ad hominem. Suggesting someone might be “raising the asshole flag” by using misogyny seems fair to me, but then I consider that kind of bigotry to be unacceptable anywhere, and as a moderator of longstanding on this site, @CyberLN was absolutely right to immediately call you on it, and demand an apology.

2 Likes
68

A simple search at the top of this thread can show who was the first to mention the following terms: Thomas Nagel, David Chalmers, Daniel Dennett, Hard emergence, Qualia, the Hard problem of consciousness, Panpsychism, or Philosophical zombie.

All these terms help clarify the discussion, offering readers insight into the subject through different viewpoints. If needed, I’m open to citing specific papers for further clarification.

On the other hand, if you search for the words Idiotic, Hilarious, Dishonest, Liar, or Asshole, you will quickly see who has been using these words, sometimes systematically, since the first comment.

1 Like
69

Until I receive an appropriate apology for the unjustified attacks and insults I’ve received on this site, I will not proceed or engage in further debates. Accepting anything less would imply condoning a double standard that hinders meaningful conversation.

1 Like
70

Would you like me to close your account then?

1 Like
71

No, I don’t want that. I would like to have a civilized and polite debate with anyone open to it.

I only ask from you and others the same courtesy I have already extended. Nothing more.

1 Like
72

What it appears you actually want is for a discussion to proceed according to your wishes. That’s just not likely to happen.

What civilized and polite consist of is up for grabs. Some would say that it includes responding to questions, addressing actual post content, not using bigoted language (misogyny is bigotry), understanding that ideas are fair game, not telling other posters that they “must,” “are obligated to,” “are compelled,” that “there are no other options” than what you assert, etc.

You actually said that if I did not accept your arguments then I would become “irrational as those crazy believers”. Fair play much?

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU, you are a guest in this house. I’m advising you once more to behave appropriately or you will be shown the door. This subject is now closed. Do not respond to it further. If you do so, I will delete the post and close your account. (Yes, I get the last word.)

You are, however, welcome to engage in debate about a/theist subject matter as that is the purpose of this forum. You need to adhere to the guidelines I’ve provided or any additional guidelines I may provide in the future.

2 Likes
73

It’s baffling you think a list of names of proponents adds anything, utterly baffling, would you care for a list of names of prominent philosophers and scientists that think panpsychism is utter nonsense? I’m guessing not, and I am guessing the irony is lost on you.

First line, first post, and it’s a condescending straw man fallacy, and he’s whining about disrespect now, priceless.

More priggish condescension, second sentence first post.

Still his first post, and fater half a dozen requests for a single credible scientific source, he failed to even acknowledge the request, breathtaking dishonesty, and yet he whines about disrespect.

A god of the gaps polemic, which he never addressed, more dishonesty, and yet he whines about disrespect.

A false dichotomy fallacy, which…you guessed it…he never attempted to even acknowledge, more dishonesty, and yet now he whines about disrespect.

A straw man fallacy, and guess what, he failed to respond or even acknowledge it any way, more dishonesty, and yet he whines about disrespect, and we’re still on his opening post of this thread for context.

Called on this unevidenced assumption, that segways clumsily and hilariously to a deity, several posters pointed out he’s begging the question, another fallacious assertion, he failed to ever acknowledge this, so more dishonesty, and we are finally done with his first opening post of this thread, and now he whines about disrespect.

I’d say he was lucking he most posters showed as much patience as they did.

74

As this string has now run it’s course and has completely deviated from the OP, I’m closing it. It’s time to move on to new debates on a/theist subject matter.

1 Like