Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

Sorry, I did not make myself clear.
Your soul is you, Gordon.

So, on what basis does my 'soul' know about guitar strings?

It seems to me you are just conflating 'soul' with 'brain': where the former is redundant and the latter is sufficient, and in any event you can say nothing meaningful about the former that isn't fallacious in one way or another: since you can't say anything meaningful about 'souls' then your claim that I have one is plain silly.

That biology is sufficient (and not just for the buying of guitar strings) clearly scares you witless, no doubt because if you were ever to take time to consider that we don't have a 'soul' then your take on 'God' crashes and burns.     

[Stranger]

It is a simple fact that you were free to choose whichever guitar strings you wanted for any reason you care to choose.

Once again we get the Alan-bot sidestep. How do "you" make this choice? Is it entirely on the basis of the reasons that led to it or not? If not, then some part of the choice must be for none of the reasons and so be random.

You can't be free of being the person you are - it doesn't make sense. You are the person you are because of your nature, nurture, and experience and you make choices because of who you are and the circumstances of the choice (that arrived from the past). That is the only sort of freedom that makes coherent sense.

[SusanDoris]

Whenever I read AB's posts, I think of his grandson and fervently hope that, if he decides to inculcate the child into his inane beliefs, he will also have the courage to show him the far greater number of rational, logical, sensible,   practical, scientifically verified information given in posts of nearly all of the rest of us so that at least there will be one more adult in the future who will not be ignorant of reality.

You know, I quite often write posts in response to AB's stuff and nonsense, but then don't post them but this one stays!

courage to show him the far greater number of rational, logical, sensible, 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Im afraid I have to go with determinism since nobody who posts on this thread seems to have the freewill to stop it and seem determined to make fools of themselves.Ha Ha Ha.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Whenever I read AB's posts, I think of his grandson and fervently hope that, if he decides to inculcate the child into his inane beliefs,

Change the record.

[torridon]

It is a simple fact that you were free to choose whichever guitar strings you wanted for any reason you care to choose.  It is not your mechanistic material brain doing the choosing.  It is you.  Your brain just follows the orders you give it.

No need for a brain then ? I don't know, the most sophisticated object in the known universe, just what complex creatures need for resolving choice, but it turns out to be useless because you have to have a soul to tell it what choices to make.

<facepalm>

[Sriram]

No need for a brain then ? I don't know, the most sophisticated object in the known universe, just what complex creatures need for resolving choice, but it turns out to be useless because you have to have a soul to tell it what choices to make.

<facepalm>

Are you arguing for determinism or that the brain makes the choices (not the soul)?!!

[torridon]

Are you arguing for determinism or that the brain makes the choices (not the soul)?!!

Brains evolved to resolve choice (all choice, not just conscious choice) and the size and complexity of brains mirrors the complexity of species having them.  All this happens in a reality which we can regard, for all practical purposes, as deterministic.

No souls, required, a spurious concept.

[SusanDoris]

No need for a brain then ? I don't know, the most sophisticated object in the known universe, just what complex creatures need for resolving choice, but it turns out to be useless because you have to have a soul to tell it what choices to make.

<facepalm>

 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Brains evolved to resolve choice (all choice, not just conscious choice) and the size and complexity of brains mirrors the complexity of species having them.  All this happens in a reality which we can regard, for all practical purposes, as deterministic.

No souls, required, a spurious concept.

While I don't have a problem with this thread going round and round in circles, I am not really seeing why a belief in this particular concept - AB's idea of his soul being him - is any more problematic than other beliefs in concepts that people never agree on. For example, it's unlikely the "no need for it" line of argument would work with a transgender person - e.g. telling them what they believe is their reality is a spurious concept because it doesn't feel like your reality, or because people cannot agree on the definitions and how the concept works. We seem to be a complex species which probably leads to our complex realities. 

[torridon]

While I don't have a problem with this thread going round and round in circles, I am not really seeing why a belief in this particular concept - AB's idea of his soul being him - is any more problematic than other beliefs in concepts that people never agree on. For example, it's unlikely the "no need for it" line of argument would work with a transgender person - e.g. telling them what they believe is their reality is a spurious concept because it doesn't feel like your reality, or because people cannot agree on the definitions and how the concept works. We seem to be a complex species which probably leads to our complex realities.

If someone were to claim the Sun moves across the sky because it is being pulled by a team of invisible magic horses, my response would be 'spurious', as we already have a perfectly good and sufficient explanation for the apparent motion of celestial bodies from gravity.  Likewise we have a perfectly adequate explanation for the resolution of choice - in terms of mind,  so soul is not needed, and in fact trying to tack it on creates more issues to explain than it purportedly solves.  It's the old Okham's Razor thing.

[wigginhall]

Yes, soul is like phlogiston, superfluous in empirical description.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If someone were to claim the Sun moves across the sky because it is being pulled by a team of invisible magic horses, my response would be 'spurious', as we already have a perfectly good and sufficient explanation for the apparent motion of celestial bodies from gravity.  Likewise we have a perfectly adequate explanation for the resolution of choice - in terms of mind,  so soul is not needed, and in fact trying to tack it on creates more issues to explain than it purportedly solves.  It's the old Okham's Razor thing.

The explanations for the mind and choice might be adequate for you, despite the huge amount that remains unknown about choice and the mind - as much as 2 genders and sticking with the gender that matches my biology is adequate for me, despite the huge amount that is unknown about gender and mind. Creating additional or changing genders might be spurious for me but is someone else’s more complex reality.

[jeremyp]

It can't be defined by things that have happened because it is a spiritual entity defined by God.

Being defined by God would be a thing that happened.

What you are doing is lumping some things that happened in a special category of magic purely so you do not have to confront the reality that your thought processes are deterministic.

Unfortunately, if it is true that your spiritual self is defined by God and that's what makes you make the decisions that you do make, it means you are no more than God's puppet. I think that's worse than being deterministic.

[SusanDoris]

For example, it's unlikely the "no need for it" line of argument would work with a transgender person -

The difference being that, whatever that person believes, he or she is an actual, living person, whereas AB is talking about something with zero presence, existence, substance etc, and certainly zero objective evidence.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The difference being that, whatever that person believes, he or she is an actual, living person, whereas AB is talking about something with zero presence, existence, substance etc, and certainly zero objective evidence.

What substance is gender made from? How does someone provide objective evidence that they are the gender they claim to be? I’m not sure why I need a gender - what’s wrong with just sticking to biology and chromosomes?

[wigginhall]

What substance is gender made from? How does someone provide objective evidence that they are the gender they claim to be? I’m not sure why I need a gender - what’s wrong with just sticking to biology and chromosomes?

Because anatomy doesn't predict behaviour or personal feelings.  Having a penis doesn't lead to masculine traits necessarily.   Also, compared with soul, these things are not supernatural.

[Stranger]

What substance is gender made from? How does someone provide objective evidence that they are the gender they claim to be? I’m not sure why I need a gender - what’s wrong with just sticking to biology and chromosomes?

The existence of a soul is a matter of fact about the objective (intersubjective) world. Either humans have souls or not. Gender identity (how somebody sees themselves in the context of a society) is not in the same category - and it's very silly to try to compare them.

What's more, Alan's problem is not so much a belief in a soul, for which there is zero evidence, but his stated reason for why he thinks we should take it seriously. He's taken a simplistic, subjective impression that he has of 'freedom' and concluded that what we decide cannot be deterministic (entirely because of the past) and also involves no randomness. This leads directly to a contradiction: not determined by the past implies that a choice is not entirely due to its antecedents, but no randomness implies the opposite. He's them made the almost comical mistake of thinking the contradiction is a restriction of the physical world, rather than a basic problem of logical consistency. Hence, he invites us to believe in a soul because, being non-physical, it frees us from the logical contradiction that had nothing to do with the physical world in the first place.

It's absurdity squared.

[Spud]

The Bible talks about the soul as in the body when it has life in it, but also distinguishes between the soul that is destroyed after death and the one that lives.

"34Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 35For whoever wants to save their life b will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? 37Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 38If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.” Mark 8:34-38

From this passage it's clear that preserving one's soul involves self-denial, but also faith in Christ.

[Spud]

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matthew 10:28 New Living Translation

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Because anatomy doesn't predict behaviour or personal feelings.  Having a penis doesn't lead to masculine traits necessarily.

I didn't say anatomy predicted behaviour or personal feelings. I was asking what substance gender was made from and what can be established objectively about someone's gender identity.

We behave as individuals and our personal feelings are our complex reality but if people want gender labels to try and group people together, each individual has their own reality in terms how they perceive gender or if they even perceive gender at all. Your concept of masculine might be my concept of what it means to be a woman. But if we want to differentiate between personal reality and objective reality - we use science to develop tools and criteria to try to objectively label things  - such as chromosomes, genes, anatomy - until we discover new information and change the labels.

Also, compared with soul, these things are not supernatural.

A soul is referred to as supernatural because it is a concept that can't be tested by any natural means. It exists as a concept in the perception of the person who believes in it and therefore there is no single agreed upon definition. What's the difference between the concept of a soul that can't be agreed upon or tested and the concept of a gender that can't be agreed upon or tested?   

[SusanDoris]

The Bible talks about the soul as in the body when it has life in it, but also distinguishes between the soul that is destroyed after death and the one that lives.

"34Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 35For whoever wants to save their life b will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? 37Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 38If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.” Mark 8:34-38

From this passage it's clear that preserving one's soul involves self-denial, but also faith in Christ.

Well, my goodness,, please tell me what I must deny myself in my remaining living time?!! 
Obviously, as an atheist, I have no faith in anything supernatural.
what makes you really, really think you might have a separately existing soul which is going to float away from you when you die? And go ... well, where?

[SusanDoris]

What's the difference between the concept of a soul that can't be agreed upon or tested and the concept of a gender that can't be agreed upon or tested?

The former has no connection with anything objective or with  reality, the latter has connections with an objective person.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The existence of a soul is a matter of fact about the objective (intersubjective) world. Either humans have souls or not. Gender identity (how somebody sees themselves in the context of a society) is not in the same category - and it's very silly to try to compare them.

It is very silly to talk about the existence of a soul as a matter of fact, when facts are established through the use of naturalistic methods and the concept of a soul has been labeled as supernatural and therefore can't be tested. 

What's more, Alan's problem is not so much a belief in a soul, for which there is zero evidence, but his stated reason for why he thinks we should take it seriously. He's taken a simplistic, subjective impression that he has of 'freedom' and concluded that what we decide cannot be deterministic (entirely because of the past) and also involves no randomness. This leads directly to a contradiction: not determined by the past implies that a choice is not entirely due to its antecedents, but no randomness implies the opposite. He's them made the almost comical mistake of thinking the contradiction is a restriction of the physical world, rather than a basic problem of logical consistency. Hence, he invites us to believe in a soul because, being non-physical, it frees us from the logical contradiction that had nothing to do with the physical world in the first place.

It's absurdity squared.

I wasn't addressing this part of Alan's concept - I don't agree with Alan's contradictory concept that involves neither determinism or randomness in decision-making. I'm not sure if Alan believes that in the absence of decisions being determined by past events or randomness, God or some other agency is directing the soul to make decisions based on some concept of God already having determined the decisions you will make or maybe God trying to steer a person towards a particular future path. There are so many various concepts and beliefs about how souls would work but Alan does not appear to have picked one in particular - I was under the impression he said he doesn't know how his concept of a soul would influence decisions. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The former has no connection with anything objective or with  reality, the latter has connections with an objective person.

A soul has connections with the objective person who believes they have a soul and that it influences their behaviour. How are you testing for the reality of a gender?