Pascal's wager is not practical

[MPat]

I do always check my system of belief.

Yes. I always ask questions. My world view is not complete though since I don’t have answer to all my questions.

Given your description I’d say you are not checking your system (for self-consistency or for consistency with some facts), but merely expanding it.

That is, let’s say that your system includes two contradictory propositions. Do you have a way to detect that?

There is another thing. Let’s look what you wrote before:

goout:

So if your words and your actions are not well integrated, what is missing?

I am very integrated.

As you can see, you did not make a claim about your system. You made the claim about yourself.

And that is why I have asked about making examination of conscience (you did not answer that).

How do you know your actions fit your system?

Do you do any sort of testing?

Evil God? Evil exists. As simple as that.

That’s all? So, by analogy, are you also thinking about “Evil rock”, “Evil drop of water”, “Evil colour yellow”, “Evil mathematical theorem”?

Or is there something that would make that unreasonable?

God has to have specific attributes, such as omniscience, otherwise He is like one of us.

And yet, when I asked why “Evil God” is supposed to count as “God”, you said nothing about this.

So, do you have your system written down, so that you would be able to remember all those things when someone asks you (or when you check it for consistency)?

Or do you just “make things up as you go”?

No, I don’t think like that. God is a mind. Mind has no location.

Is that the only difference from “bearded man on the cloud” you can think of? Do you think God is like your mind, just much smarter, more knowledgeable, more powerful?

 

[STT]

Given your description I’d say you are not checking your system (for self-consistency or for consistency with some facts), but merely expanding it.

How do you know that I don’t check my system of belief? I already told you that there are problems that I don’t have answer for them. This means that I check it.

That is, let’s say that your system includes two contradictory propositions. Do you have a way to detect that?

What are those contrary propositions?

There is another thing. Let’s look what you wrote before:

As you can see, you did not make a claim about your system. You made the claim about yourself.

And that is why I have asked about making examination of conscience (you did not answer that).

How do you know your actions fit your system?

I don’t believe in objective morality. My actions is aimed toward right and avoiding wrong. What is right and wrong? It is completely situational. Doing evil, lying for example, is right when I can save a life. Doing good in such a situation is wrong.

Do you do any sort of testing?

No. I don’t know where my actions take me eventually since I don’t know whether God is Evil or Good.

That’s all? So, by analogy, are you also thinking about “Evil rock”, “Evil drop of water”, “Evil colour yellow”, “Evil mathematical theorem”?

It is more than that but that is the basic premise. Evil exists, everything has a creator, therefore there is an Evil God. You cannot possibly resolve the problem of Evil with a Good God.

Or is there something that would make that unreasonable?

What do you mean?

And yet, when I asked why “Evil God” is supposed to count as “God”, you said nothing about this.

So, do you have your system written down, so that you would be able to remember all those things when someone asks you (or when you check it for consistency)?

I have my system written down. It has many problems though that I am thinking about it right now.

Or do you just “make things up as you go”?

I have to make things up in certain points to see if I can have a consistent picture.

Is that the only difference from “bearded man on the cloud” you can think of? Do you think God is like your mind, just much smarter, more knowledgeable, more powerful?

I think that there is only minds and a substance so called physical. I think if there is a God then He is more powerful, more knowledgeable than me. I however have problems with existence of God that I am discussing them in another thread right now. I had several threads on this topic in past.

 

[MPat]

How do you know that I don’t check my system of belief? I already told you that there are problems that I don’t have answer for them. This means that I check it.

No, not in the sense I am interested in.

That is, you gave no indication that you do any formal testing of your system for self-consistency and consistency with other facts.

What are those contrary propositions?

It’s a hypothetical. For example, maybe you have a proposition “Evil God can exist.” and (hiding somewhere else and, perhaps, formulated using different words) “Evil God cannot exist.”.

So, do you have any process that would allow you to catch such self-contradiction?

I don’t believe in objective morality. My actions is aimed toward right and avoiding wrong. What is right and wrong? It is completely situational. Doing evil, lying for example, is right when I can save a life. Doing good in such a situation is wrong.

That doesn’t change much: you still need to check if your actions (during a day, a week, a month) are consistent with your system. For otherwise, how would you know? No, you can’t just assume that you are doing a good job, that you are “a good person”.

The difference is that you will have to make the questions of examination yourself. Or, perhaps, you want to reuse some Catholic examination of conscience?

No. I don’t know where my actions take me eventually

That is not what I am asking.

I am asking if you do anything like testing, as it is understood in software engineering.

It is more than that but that is the basic premise.

(Sigh) So, once more you were not able to give the full answer?

It is more than that but that is the basic premise. Evil exists, everything has a creator, therefore there is an Evil God. You cannot possibly resolve the problem of Evil with a Good God.

No. I don’t know where my actions take me eventually since I don’t know whether God is Evil or Good.

Well, we do have a self-contradiction right here.

In one case you claim you do not know if God is good or evil. In another case you claim to have a proof that “Evil God” exists.

Now, perhaps, you will be able to patch it up.

But my point is that you cannot rely on just being good at noticing the self-contradictions informally. For it hasn’t been demonstrated that you are actually that good at such a task.

I have my system written down.

That’s a start. But, apparently, you can’t use that writing to give full answers to pretty basic questions, as in here?

I think that there is only minds and a substance so called physical.

So, what about numbers? Or sets? Or propositions?

I think if there is a God then He is more powerful, more knowledgeable than me.

That does not answer my question.

 

[STT]

No, not in the sense I am interested in.

That is, you gave no indication that you do any formal testing of your system for self-consistency and consistency with other facts.

If you wish, we can discuss that the system of my thought is self-consistent or not.

It’s a hypothetical. For example, maybe you have a proposition “Evil God can exist.” and (hiding somewhere else and, perhaps, formulated using different words) “Evil God cannot exist.”.

So, do you have any process that would allow you to catch such self-contradiction?

There is no self-contradiction on the part that I accepted as correct. There are however problems in my system of belief. I think it is matter of further contemplation and imagination.

That doesn’t change much: you still need to check if your actions (during a day, a week, a month) are consistent with your system. For otherwise, how would you know? No, you can’t just assume that you are doing a good job, that you are “a good person”.

Yes. I check my actions to make sure that they agree with what I think is right.

The difference is that you will have to make the questions of examination yourself. Or, perhaps, you want to reuse some Catholic examination of conscience?

Discussion is and critical thinking are the ways to finding what is right. There is however tension between what I think is right and what other think is right. I hope the tension would be resolve eventually through the discussion.

That is not what I am asking.

I am asking if you do anything like testing, as it is understood in software engineering.

Yes. I check the state of affair after each decision I make to ensure that I am going in the right way.

Well, we do have a self-contradiction right here.

In one case you claim you do not know if God is good or evil. In another case you claim to have a proof that “Evil God” exists.

That is a good point which I was aware of that. In one hand we are certain that evil exists. Existence of evil leads to existence of an Evil God. In another hand we are certain that good exists. In the same manner this leads to existence of a good God. These mean that God, if there is any, is indifferent toward evil or good. These also mean God, if there is any, cannot be only good or evil. So there are two conclusions in this argument.

Now, perhaps, you will be able to patch it up.

Yes. The discussion required more clarification.

 

[STT]

But my point is that you cannot rely on just being good at noticing the self-contradictions informally. For it hasn’t been demonstrated that you are actually that good at such a task.

Nah. You are concluding very fast. I already answered to your objections or points.

That’s a start. But, apparently, you can’t use that writing to give full answers to pretty basic questions, as in here?

Most part of the basic that I know is right. As I mentioned there are problems which requires further contemplation or imagination. I might be able to do it in my journey.

So, what about numbers? Or sets? Or propositions?

Our experiences have two sources, internal or external. I call everything which can be experienced as physical. Our experience is either direct, when we experience a thought, or indirect, when we experience an object.

The experience of thought indicates the existence of an intelligent agent. The experience of an object indicates the existence of material. The existence of intelligence in objects that we experience is an indication of at least one another intelligent agent.

That does not answer my question.

Could you please rephrase your question?

 

[MPat]

If you wish, we can discuss that the system of my thought is self-consistent or not.

How?

Your system is mostly “secret”. When I manage to “interrogate” you, I only get some tiny fragments of arguments and propositions. I need to “interrogate” further to get more fragments. And at each time they are presented as if they were the whole argument or proposition.

Nah. You are concluding very fast. I already answered to your objections or points.

The argument is pretty simple: you are not “a genius of all times and nations” (“гений всех времён и народов”), because that is the title of Stalin, Stalin is dead and dead people do not post in this forum.

More seriously, my point was that your expertise on this point has not been established, proved.

And, at the very least, you gave no argument for it in this thread. For that matter, I doubt you yourself have a good “private” reason to think that you are an expert on these matters (have you thought about things like that?).

Now, it would not be that much of a problem if you had a good formal process to check your system for self-contradictions and the like. But it looks like you have no such formal process.

And that’s the point: you shouldn’t rely on yourself. You are not that trustworthy. You have to rely on someone (or at least something) else.

Our experiences have two sources, internal or external. I call everything which can be experienced as physical. Our experience is either direct, when we experience a thought, or indirect, when we experience an object.

So, no actual answer to the question - which of your two categories are you going to assign to numbers, sets, colours and other abstract objects?

Then that looks like a clear counterexample to your claim.

Let’s see how you support the claim:

I think that there is only minds and a substance so called physical.

So, it looks like ultimately all you have is your own judgement. And, as I pointed out, you are not sufficiently trustworthy.

It is similar with your claim that existence of evil disproves existence of Good God - you just judge that there is no solution, because you do not see it.

In fact, it looks like your whole system is mostly supported by your own judgement.

And that leads to another point: can you bring yourself to say that your system is impossible to patch up and that it has to be thrown out? Under what conditions would you accept that?

As you can see, here we also run into “Short-sighted Pascal’s Wager”: in very short term abandoning your system is going to be unpleasant.

Can you look beyond very short term?

 

[STT]

How?

Your system is mostly “secret”. When I manage to “interrogate” you, I only get some tiny fragments of arguments and propositions. I need to “interrogate” further to get more fragments. And at each time they are presented as if they were the whole argument or proposition.

I am open to discuss things further if you wish. I am thankful of your time.

The argument is pretty simple: you are not “a genius of all times and nations” (“гений всех времён и народов”), because that is the title of Stalin, Stalin is dead and dead people do not post in this forum.

More seriously, my point was that your expertise on this point has not been established, proved.

And, at the very least, you gave no argument for it in this thread. For that matter, I doubt you yourself have a good “private” reason to think that you are an expert on these matters (have you thought about things like that?).

Now, it would not be that much of a problem if you had a good formal process to check your system for self-contradictions and the like. But it looks like you have no such formal process.

And that’s the point: you shouldn’t rely on yourself. You are not that trustworthy. You have to rely on someone (or at least something) else.

I already studied philosophy to the extend that I thought is enough. I have a view of reality which I think is correct. I keep myself aware of other new systems of belief.

So, no actual answer to the question - which of your two categories are you going to assign to numbers, sets, colours and other abstract objects?

Abstract objects are belongs in internal reality.

Then that looks like a clear counterexample to your claim.

Let’s see how you support the claim:

So, it looks like ultimately all you have is your own judgement. And, as I pointed out, you are not sufficiently trustworthy.

It is similar with your claim that existence of evil disproves existence of Good God - you just judge that there is no solution, because you do not see it.

And what was wrong with my argument about neutral God?

In fact, it looks like your whole system is mostly supported by your own judgement.

And that leads to another point: can you bring yourself to say that your system is impossible to patch up and that it has to be thrown out? Under what conditions would you accept that?

I am open to accept that my system of belief is wrong and look for another reliable system of belief. That is one of the reason that I am discussing my system of belief here. But first, we need to discuss what was wrong with my argument about neutral God.

As you can see, here we also run into “Short-sighted Pascal’s Wager”: in very short term abandoning your system is going to be unpleasant.

Can you look beyond very short term?

Pascal’s Wager is not practical until one can discard all incorrect systems of belief.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I think Pascal’s Wager is brilliant and practical.

Think of it this way.
Choice A - weak or inconclusive evidence that God(s) exist(s)
Choice B - zero negating evidence for the opposite of Choice A

If you wanted to or had to choose one or the other, Pascal says you have nothing to loose by picking A as your tentative hypothesis.

 

[rossum]

Choice B - zero negating evidence for the opposite of Choice A

I disagree. There are some gods who will punish you for worshipping other gods. If you pick the wrong god, and the right god is one of those who punishes unbelievers then there is a big negative for picking A.

 

[MPat]

I already studied philosophy to the extend that I thought is enough.

That’s the problem, isn’t it?

You have judged the effort you put into studying Philosophy as sufficient. The argument is:

1. STT thinks he has studied Philosophy sufficiently. (premise)
2. If someone sufficiently trustworthy thinks he has studied Philosophy sufficiently, it is truly the case. (premise)
3. STT is sufficiently trustworthy. (premise)
4. If STT thinks he has studied Philosophy sufficiently, it is truly the case. (from 2, 3)
5. STT has studied Philosophy sufficiently. (from 1, 4)

So, where do you get premise 3?

Could you get it from “wishful thinking”? After all, wouldn’t it be nice to be trustworthy?

I have a view of reality which I think is correct.

And…?

Abstract objects are belongs in internal reality.

You did not give such a category.

You were saying everything is either a physical object or a mind:

I think that there is only minds and a substance so called physical.

There was no category called “internal reality”.

If you want it, you have to update your claim. Yes, explicitly.

And you have to accept that if you have missed one category, you might have missed many other categories.

In other words, you are not trustworthy on this matter.

Once again: don’t rely on yourself. Rely on someone or something more reliable (a formal process, Church, a philosopher with some reputation).

And what was wrong with my argument about neutral God?

I was referring to this:

Evil exists, everything has a creator, therefore there is an Evil God. You cannot possibly resolve the problem of Evil with a Good God.

And how do you know that “problem of evil” is not solvable if God is good? Again, it looks like that is mostly your judgement.

I am open to accept that my system of belief is wrong and look for another reliable system of belief.

Are you? How do you know that you are?

Pascal’s Wager is not practical until one can discard all incorrect systems of belief.

First, you already tried saying that in the original post. It has been answered. You do not even acknowledge the existence of the answers.

That, by the way, is evidence hinting that something is not right…

Second, you waste your time arguing that “Short-sighted Pascal’s Wager” an argument is not good. That is pretty clear. The question is different: could it be that you are using it anyway? Not explicitly, of course.

I am pointing out that you really should examine your motivations. Maybe you will discover something?

If you pick the wrong god, and the right god is one of those who punishes unbelievers then there is a big negative for picking A.

And again, you already tried saying that. It has been answered. You do not even acknowledge the existence of the answers.

 

[STT]

That’s the problem, isn’t it?
…
Could you get it from “wishful thinking”? After all, wouldn’t it be nice to be trustworthy?

I already mentioned that I am open to the new ideas so there is no problem with the fact that I realize that it was enough to study old ideas.

And…?

I am here to discuss it, first to make sure that it has no problem and second to let others know about my world view.

You did not give such a category.

No. I divide what we experience as internal and external, read it internal reality and external reality.

You were saying everything is either a physical object or a mind:

That is still correct. Physical objects are basically what mind experience and cause/affect.

There was no category called “internal reality”.

This is already answered.

If you want it, you have to update your claim. Yes, explicitly.

And you have to accept that if you have missed one category, you might have missed many other categories.

In other words, you are not trustworthy on this matter.

Once again: don’t rely on yourself. Rely on someone or something more reliable (a formal process, Church, a philosopher with some reputation).

No, I am still firm that everything is either physical object or mind. Physical object however can be external like material object or internal like thought.

I was referring to this:

And how do you know that “problem of evil” is not solvable if God is good? Again, it looks like that is mostly your judgement.

My solution as I mentioned is simple. God has to be neutral to Good and Evil since both exist in His creation. That argument was against Good God.

Are you? How do you know that you are?

I already changed my system of belief.

First, you already tried saying that in the original post. It has been answered. You do not even acknowledge the existence of the answers.

That, by the way, is evidence hinting that something is not right…

Second, you waste your time arguing that “Short-sighted Pascal’s Wager” an argument is not good. That is pretty clear. The question is different: could it be that you are using it anyway? Not explicitly, of course.

I am pointing out that you really should examine your motivations. Maybe you will discover something?

Thanks for your advises. I take them under consideration.

 

[MPat]

I already mentioned that I am open to the new ideas so there is no problem with the fact that I realize that it was enough to study old ideas.

Oh, of course there is a problem.

First, it has not been established that you are really open to new ideas yet. You say that you are, but how do you know that?

Second, what about openness to those “old” ideas?

After all, for all you know, you have rejected them for no good reason, just because you did not study them sufficiently.

No, I am still firm that everything is either physical object or mind. Physical object however can be external like material object or internal like thought.

So, after all this interrogation I finally received an answer.

And it is that… abstract objects are physical…?

Seriously!?

Can you offer some - any! - meaning of the word “physical” that makes any sense here?

My solution as I mentioned is simple. God has to be neutral to Good and Evil since both exist in His creation. That argument was against Good God.

So, you offer a distraction.

Your solution is useless when you have to justify a premise logically coming before you get to the “problem” you are trying to “solve”.

Once again, all you have is your own judgement that “Problem of Evil” has no solution without “Evil God” or “Indifferent God”. That would be good enough if you were known to be trustworthy. But, again, that hasn’t been demonstrated.

I already changed my system of belief.

From what to what?

And how?

Those answers do make a difference.

 

[STT]

Oh, of course there is a problem.

First, it has not been established that you are really open to new ideas yet. You say that you are, but how do you know that?

As I said I judge about my system of belief to ensure that it is consistent,

Second, what about openness to those “old” ideas?

I am open to them too.

After all, for all you know, you have rejected them for no good reason, just because you did not study them sufficiently.

I don’t think so.

So, after all this interrogation I finally received an answer.

And it is that… abstract objects are physical…?

Seriously!?

Can you offer some - any! - meaning of the word “physical” that makes any sense here?

As I mentioned before, I call the stuff that we experience as physical.

So, you offer a distraction.

Your solution is useless when you have to justify a premise logically coming before you get to the “problem” you are trying to “solve”.

Once again, all you have is your own judgement that “Problem of Evil” has no solution without “Evil God” or “Indifferent God”. That would be good enough if you were known to be trustworthy. But, again, that hasn’t been demonstrated.

What is your solution to the problem of Evil?

From what to what?

And how?

Those answers do make a difference.

I am afraid to say that I am prohibited to discuss my personal spiritual experience which partially affected my system of belief.

 

[MPat]

What is your solution to the problem of Evil?

That seems to be irrelevant at this point.

You claim that you know there is no solution that accepts that God is good. That needs some justification.

And no, merely not knowing any good solution (or not seeing how any good solution works) by itself is not a sufficient justification. You need something else.

I am afraid to say that I am prohibited to discuss my personal spiritual experience which partially affected my system of belief.

Um, prohibited by whom?

That does seem to leave at least the question “From what to what?”, even if you can’t fully answer “How?”.

Of course, you can refuse to answer any of them, but then there isn’t much of a point to have a discussion.

And some additional advice: “spiritual experience” as such is not certain to be reliable. Evil spirits do exist. And, of course, they lie. Maybe you should consider meeting an exorcist about that “spiritual experience” instead…

 

[STT]

That seems to be irrelevant at this point.

It is relevant. I have to revisit my idea of God being neutral if you could prove that God is not Evil but Good.

You claim that you know there is no solution that accepts that God is good. That needs some justification.

That I already argued. Evil exists. Everything (excluding God) needs a creator. Therefore God is Evil. Following the same line of argument, one can prove that God is Good too. That means that God has to be neutral toward Good and Evil because He creates and allows Good and Evil.

In fact, God Himself declared that He is the creator of Evil and Good: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”

And no, merely not knowing any good solution (or not seeing how any good solution works) by itself is not a sufficient justification. You need something else.

Why there is a need for justification if there is only one solution. I mean when all other solutions are ruled out.

Um, prohibited by whom?

By admin. Only spiritual experience which is confirmed by the church can be discussed in the forum.

That does seem to leave at least the question “From what to what?”, even if you can’t fully answer “How?”.

How? By investigating my system of belief. I was materialist during a period but then I accept spiritual reality. That is the minimum that I can tell you.

Of course, you can refuse to answer any of them, but then there isn’t much of a point to have a discussion.

I hope that what I said is enough.

And some additional advice: “spiritual experience” as such is not certain to be reliable. Evil spirits do exist. And, of course, they lie. Maybe you should consider meeting an exorcist about that “spiritual experience” instead…

I meet both Good and Evil Spirits. I am convinced that both of them are necessary.

Good and Evil can be right or wrong depending on the situation. Like lying when you can save lives. Lying is Evil but it is right in such a situation. Good is however bad in such a situation.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion_IRC:

I think Pascal’s Wager is brilliant and practical.

Think of it this way.
Choice A - weak or inconclusive evidence that God(s) exist(s)
Choice B - zero negating evidence for the opposite of Choice A

If you wanted to or had to choose one or the other, Pascal says you have nothing to loose by picking A as your tentative hypothesis.

I disagree. There are some gods who will punish you for worshipping other gods. If you pick the wrong god, and the right god is one of those who punishes unbelievers then there is a big negative for picking A.

You still have nothing to lose.
You’re no worse off than the person who picks “B” (a guess that atheism is true.)

At a recent US mass shooting, some witnesses said they initially didn’t believe the noise was a gun going off. But I f I’m in America and hear bang bang bang, I’m gonna take the Pascal option and duck for cover because…you know… I’ve got nothing to lose by being wrong.

 

[rossum]

I’ve got nothing to lose by being wrong.

Yes you have. If you picked Vishnu, and YHWH was the right choice, then YHWH would smite you, hard.

 

[MPat]

I meet both Good and Evil Spirits. I am convinced that both of them are necessary.

Or you met only evil spirits, but some of them pretended to be good. And you were fooled.

That’s the point: you want to think that you are a brilliant, profound and perceptive thinker, highly knowledgeable about Philosophy, evaluating all ideas fairly etc.

And your arguments rely on such your opinion of yourself.

But what if you are not really such a great philosopher? All your system falls apart!

So, what justifies your opinion of yourself?

I was interrogating you on that - and you were not able to justify your view.

Now, as you might note, hardly anyone (perhaps no one) in this forum agrees with you.

That is evidence (although weak) against your view.

Good and Evil can be right or wrong depending on the situation. Like lying when you can save lives. Lying is Evil but it is right in such a situation. Good is however bad in such a situation.

That is your answer to me pointing out that evil spirits are going to lie.

It is inadequate for at least two reasons.

First, it implicitly presupposes that evil spirits have good reasons for lying.

Second, it ignores the main implication: if evil spirits lie, they are going to lie to you. And they are much smarter than you are, thus they are very likely to deceive you.

The fact that you missed such an obvious implication is evidence against your view - if you really were that good at Philosophy, wouldn’t you have noticed it?

Why there is a need for justification if there is only one solution. I mean when all other solutions are ruled out.

This answer is inadequate, because your claim was not merely that no solution to “Problem of Evil” you have seen works, but that no solution is possible.

Thus you have not merely to rule out every solution that you have been offered - you also have to show that there are no good solutions still waiting to be discovered.

And again - if you were reliably good at evaluating arguments, wouldn’t you have noticed that?

And your system falls apart. For example, you claim that you ruled out all solutions to “Problem of evil” you saw. That would be worth much, if you were known to be good at Philosophy. But if not…

Likewise, your rejection of explanation of evil as privation of good would be worth much, if you were known to be good at Philosophy. But if not…

I was materialist during a period but then I accept spiritual reality.

So, you were a materialist and an atheist, and then you started working with evil spirits… I’m afraid that is perhaps the only option that might be worse than atheism (in Pascal’s Wager)…

So, once again - get away from them! Find an exorcist!

You already know that at least some of the spirits lie to you. You probably suspect that they want to harm you. Why would you still want their “company”!?

If you don’t want to meet him so that he would help you, at least meet him as someone who has more experience with spirits.

Again - what do you have to lose?

 

[MPat]

Yes you have. If you picked Vishnu, and YHWH was the right choice, then YHWH would smite you, hard.

You tried to argue in such a way already.

And you still haven’t been able to demonstrate that this would actually make things worse than choosing atheism, according to Catholic doctrine (or for that matter, a doctrine of Eastern Orthodox or some Protestant denomination).

 

[STT]

Or you met only evil spirits, but some of them pretended to be good. And you were fooled.

…

But what if you are not really such a great philosopher? All your system falls apart!

So, what justifies your opinion of yourself?

I have an argument for neutral God that you didn’t address it. You kept silence on this topic so I am wondering whether you accepted or rejected it. Please show where my argument fails.

Please also offer any objection you have to my idea about reality of minds and physical.

I was interrogating you on that - and you were not able to justify your view.

Now, as you might note, hardly anyone (perhaps no one) in this forum agrees with you.

That doesn’t stop me from doing what is right.

That is evidence (although weak) against your view.

That is not evidence of anything. At least you cannot judge my view unless you offer your objections. I already have my objections to your system of belief. I have one thread now. It is entitled “First cause is sentient”. Until now, no one provide an argument in favor of First Cause being sentient. You are welcome to offer your system of belief on this topic too.