Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

It is fine because in a discussion it is up to me to clarify what I mean by my posts and to tell you that I wasn't trying to express that I am a shape-shifting lizard when I wrote the post. That's how discussion works - if people wish to continue the discussion they write another post explaining what they meant by what they wrote that they think you have misinterpreted.

See my last reply. If you want to claim an interpretation that’s not derivable from the texts you’re supposedly interpreting you must expect the effort to be dismissed. If that doesn’t bother you though, that’s a matter for you.
   

I haven't avoided anything - for the reasons already given, which is that the only comparison I was making was about Alan's perceptions of reality based on what he perceives himself as experiencing when he makes decisions. How about I save us some time - you can carry on insisting I meant something else, and I can carry on clarifying what I meant if you like, and then I can say we'll just have to agree to disagree and you can say you refuse to agree to disagree, and that's fine - because only you can decide whether you want to agree to disagree or not. And you can have the last word saying you think I'm wrong and you're right.

Yes you have – you’ve avoided the problem you’ve given yourself of conflating matters of subjective opinion (gender) with claims of objective fact (“souls”). If you still don’t want to address that though, that’s also a matter for you.   

[Alan Burns]

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.   

How can I possibly be scared witless by something which I know to be impossible?  The impossibility being that I could not be brought into existence by a blind process of random mutations coupled with natural selection based upon survival.

I know that I am an entity of awareness with my own mind and willpower.  I believe these properties can never be defined by predetermined material reactions alone.  But if God has somehow enabled these properties to emerge from material entities I stand in wonder and awe at the power of God's creation.

I have just attended the service for the seventh day of Christmas, and once more I am struck by the profound, divinely inspired message read out from the beginning of John's gospel:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.  The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognise him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God – children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in the closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

How can I possibly be scared witless by something which I know to be impossible?  The impossibility being that I could not be brought into existence by a blind process of random mutations coupled with natural selection based upon survival.

I know that I am an entity of awareness with my own mind and willpower.  I believe these properties can never be defined by predetermined material reactions alone.  But if God has somehow enabled these properties to emerge from material entities I stand in wonder and awe at the power of God's creation.

I have just attended the service for the seventh day of Christmas, and once more I am struck by the profound, divinely inspired message read out from the beginning of John's gospel:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.  The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognise him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God – children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Easily – you can be terrified by the prospect that you don’t know these things at all, that you only believe them to be true and that those beliefs could be wrong. That’s why you will never engage with the arguments that show them to be wrong – you’re too heavily invested in your mistakes.

Incidentally, could you just clarify for Gabriella whether you think “souls” to be just a matter of your personal opinion, or an objectively true fact about something that exists for all of us? Thanks. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

AB,

Easily – you can be terrified by the prospect that you don’t know these things at all, that you only believe them to be true and that those beliefs could be wrong. That’s why you will never engage with the arguments that show them to be wrong – you’re too heavily invested in your mistakes.

Is that a question or are you reading Alan's mind?

Incidentally, could you just clarify for Gabriella whether you think “souls” to be just a matter of your personal opinion, or an objectively true fact about something that exists for all of us? Thanks.

You have misunderstood the point I made. My meaning was that Alan has a belief that "souls" are objectively true, but until he presents objective evidence or some means of testing for his concept of "souls" and their effect on us, I am treating his claim as his belief, rather than a fact.

To illustrate my meaning further, I would say as an example that if someone made a claim about gravity being the cause for something, until I have evidence that gravity is the cause of a particular event or phenomenon, I would treat the claim as a belief. The difference is that there is a way of testing for the effects of gravity but there is no way of testing for what souls do.   

[Alan Burns]

Incidentally, could you just clarify for Gabriella whether you think “souls” to be just a matter of your personal opinion, or an objectively true fact about something that exists for all of us? Thanks.

Soul is that which gives me self awareness and the power of freewill.

We all have self awareness and the freedom to consciously choose - these are objective facts, not personal opinions.

I would add that any claim that our freedom to choose is just a perceived experience, rather than an objective truth, must be categorised as a personal opinion - based upon a very blinkered view of reality.

[Stranger]

How can I possibly be scared witless by something which I know to be impossible?

If you're not scared why do you do anything but actually address the arguments?

The impossibility being that I could not be brought into existence by a blind process of random mutations coupled with natural selection based upon survival.

How do you know that?

We all have self awareness and the freedom to consciously choose - these are objective facts, not personal opinions.

We all have the freedom to do as we want, in the sense of being unconstrained by external factors. What we don't have is 'freedom' in the sense that you mean because 'freedom' in that sense is self-contradictory, incoherent nonsense, for reasons that have been explained many times but you seem too scared witless to actually address...

[Alan Burns]

I
We all have the freedom to do as we want, in the sense of being unconstrained by external factors. What we don't have is 'freedom' in the sense that you mean because 'freedom' in that sense is self-contradictory, incoherent nonsense, for reasons that have been explained many times but you seem too scared witless to actually address...

But it is demonstrably not the incoherent nonsense you claim.
What is nonsense is your claim that all my choices are predetermined before I make them!
I address your arguments simply by demonstrating that I have real freedom to choose, not the predetermined version of freedom you continue to claim.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If you're not scared why do you do anything but actually address the arguments?

It's up to you to show how not addressing an argument is evidence of fear. If fear produces a biochemical reaction and you can't demonstrate that reaction in Alan then it remains your belief that Alan is afraid.

ETA: I'd say the same about people who claim other posters are afraid or lack the courage to believe in a god.

Or, as BHS likes to put it, you can expect your efforts at interpreting Alan's thoughts and feelings from his words to be dismissed and if that doesn’t bother you, that’s a matter for you.

[torridon]

How can I possibly be scared witless by something which I know to be impossible?  The impossibility being that I could not be brought into existence by a blind process of random mutations coupled with natural selection based upon survival.

Far from being impossible, that is what all the evidence suggests.  We don't have any evidence of inexplicable outside forces altering the course of evolution, human or otherwise. And even if there were a god interfering in apparently natural processes, that only begs the question of why such a being would operate in such a secretive way, disguising his 'designer hand' to make it look completely natural.

[Stranger]

But it is demonstrably not the incoherent nonsense you claim.
What is nonsense is your claim that I do not have freedom to make my own choices - that they are all predetermined before I make them!
I address your arguments simply by demonstrating that I have real freedom to choose, not the predetermined version of freedom you continue to claim.

Don't be so silly: you aren't demonstrating anything of the sort. You can't demonstrate something that makes no logical sense.

How on earth do you think posting your empty assertions demonstrates that what you are doing wasn't determined by the things that led to it, or involved some randomness?

[Stranger]

It's up to you to show how not addressing an argument is evidence of fear. If fear produces a biochemical reaction and you can't demonstrate that reaction in Alan then it remains your belief that Alan is afraid.

I asked a question as to why he was avoiding addressing the arguments if he wasn't afraid and I also said that he seems to be afraid. I genuinely don't know what is going on in his mind and how he justifies totally ignoring the logical arguments to himself...

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

What is nonsense is your claim that all my choices are predetermined before I make them!

The claim is that there is a reason for the choices you make, not that the choice is predetermined (if by predetermined you mean you had no choice but to make the choice you made). Whether the conscious  brain/ your mind/ awareness becomes aware of choices after the subconscious makes them or whether the conscious  brain/ your mind/ awareness has some control and input over the choice made is what researchers have yet to figure out.

The reason or reasons for your choice might occur to you milliseconds before you make the choice, hence the choice is determined by the reasons. Or it could be a random choice for no reason, or it could be a mix of the 2.

The bit I'm not clear on is if you believe reasons for your choice could be based on god interacting with your soul to influence your choice for some purpose.

[torridon]

Soul is that which gives me self awareness and the power of freewill.

We all have self awareness and the freedom to consciously choose - these are objective facts, not personal opinions.

We could also say that consciousness is that which gives me awareness and freewill.  That would be less controversial than 'soul' in as much as consciousness, although not fully understood, is something which we can measure and do science with.  No one has been able to detect souls, never mind measure them.  All higher creatures, not just humans, have some degree of self awareness, and all such creatures also have some degrees of freedom.  A human has more degrees of freedom than a rabbit, a rabbit has more than a worm, and so on. No creature however can be free of itself, or free of logic or free of determinism; these claims of freedom are nonsensical.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Is that a question or are you reading Alan's mind?

He asked a question about how something was possible and I answered it. As to whether he’s actually terrified of thinking, that seems likely to me but the alternative – that he thinks it's literally impossible for him to be wrong – would be even more chilling I think.   

You have misunderstood the point I made. My meaning was that Alan has a belief that "souls" are objectively true, but until he presents objective evidence or some means of testing for his concept of "souls" and their effect on us, I am treating his claim as his belief, rather than a fact.

To illustrate my meaning further, I would say as an example that if someone made a claim about gravity being the cause for something, until I have evidence that gravity is the cause of a particular event or phenomenon, I would treat the claim as a belief. The difference is that there is a way of testing for the effects of gravity but there is no way of testing for what souls do.

That’s not a difference for him though. How you treat his claims is one thing, but how he intends them to be treated is quite another. To his mind there’s no equivalence between, say, his opinions about language or gender and his claim of fact about “souls”. They're fundamentally different categories of belief.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Or, as BHS likes to put it, you can expect your efforts at interpreting Alan's thoughts and feelings from his words to be dismissed and if that doesn’t bother you, that’s a matter for you.

What I actually said was that you should expect them to be dismissed when there’s no coherent way to derive the interpretation from what’s actually said.

If you’re now saying that you weren’t interpreting his words at all but were instead just telling us how you choose to treat his pronouncements, that’s a different matter.

[Alan Burns]

Far from being impossible, that is what all the evidence suggests.  We don't have any evidence of inexplicable outside forces altering the course of evolution, human or otherwise. And even if there were a god interfering in apparently natural processes, that only begs the question of why such a being would operate in such a secretive way, disguising his 'designer hand' to make it look completely natural.

It depends what you consider to be natural.  We are so surrounded by God's creativity that we presume it to be natural.  The natural consequences of random events are demonstrably chaotic and destructive.

The fact that human will can consciously interact with this universe to bring about human creation is surely a reflection of God's will interacting to bring about the existence of life as we know it.  Life which demonstrates far greater specific complexity than any human creation.

[torridon]

It depends what you consider to be natural.  We are so surrounded by God's creativity that we presume it to be natural.  The natural consequences of random events are demonstrably chaotic and destructive.

The fact that human will can consciously interact with this universe to bring about human creation is surely a reflection of God's will interacting to bring about the existence of life as we know it.  Life which demonstrates far greater specific complexity than any human creation.

All very nice, but that is all just assertion with no justification.  If you want to convince people of it, you have to show some evidence in support, show your working, not just assert it to be true.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It depends what you consider to be natural.

In the absence of any coherent reason to think there to be a non-natural, everything.

We are so surrounded by God's creativity that we presume it to be natural.

Argument by assertion.

The natural consequences of random events are demonstrably chaotic and destructive.

Of course they’re not, but if you think they demonstrably are nonetheless then demonstrate it rather than just assert it.

The fact that human will can consciously interact with this universe to bring about human creation is surely a reflection of God's will interacting to bring about the existence of life as we know it.

It’s not surely any such thing – to make that argument rather than just assert it you’d have to demonstrate first both a god and the characteristics you claim for it. You know, the missing stuff you never bother with because we’re apparently just supposed to take your word for it instead.   

Life which demonstrates far greater specific complexity than any human creation.

No-one says that life is a human creation. Rather all the evidence we have is that life is a natural phenomenon and speciation is caused by evolution.

[Roses]

The Biblical creation story is less than credible. I think the theory of evolution has much more credibility, if science eventually discovers what kicked it all off, I suspect it will have nothing to do with any god.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That’s not a difference for him though. How you treat his claims is one thing, but how he intends them to be treated is quite another. To his mind there’s no equivalence between, say, his opinions about language or gender and his claim of fact about “souls”. They're fundamentally different categories of belief.     

You're still not getting it. I wasn't making a comparison with Alan's opinions on gender or language. I was making a comparison of Alan's perception of reality with a transexual whose perception of their reality is that they are a man or a woman regardless of their biology or anatomy and how society is accommodating of their reality that their essence or authentic self has been born in the wrong body. I also pointed out that society is accommodating of the perception that  judges should treat behaviour based on intentions differently from behaviour based on biochemistry. 

As for how Alan intends his claims to be treated, as I said before I think your assessment of the words in his post is wrong, for the reasons I have already given. But then I dismiss your interpretation of many other posts on the basis that your efforts reflect your bias. Just a couple of examples of what Alan has written that led me to my assessment are:

Reply #33831
"I do my best to answer according to what I genuinely believe to be the truth - which is not just based upon my religious belief"

Reply #33843
"Sorry, but this explanation falls so far short of reality that I cannot give it any credence.  My will must be driven by my conscious awareness, otherwise I could not consciously interact with this world.  To claim that everything is predetermined before we become aware of it does not reflect our basic sense of reality."

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

What I actually said was that you should expect them to be dismissed when there’s no coherent way to derive the interpretation from what’s actually said.

I don't have a problem with you dismissing my interpretations if you don't understand them.

If you’re now saying that you weren’t interpreting his words at all but were instead just telling us how you choose to treat his pronouncements, that’s a different matter.

Nope - I was interpreting words he had written as well as stating how I treat his claims. But I am fine with you not agreeing with my interpretations of his words or dismissing my interpretations or however you want to describe what you think you are doing in response to my posts.

I call that "agreeing to disagree" but how you choose to describe it is up to you.

[Stranger]

I was making a comparison of Alan's perception of reality with a transexual whose perception of their reality is that they are a man or a woman regardless of their biology or anatomy and how society is accommodating of their reality that their essence or authentic self has been born in the wrong body.

And yet again: Alan's claims are about objective reality and transexuals' claims are about the contents of their minds. They are fundamentally different categories of claims.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

And yet again: Alan's claims are about objective reality and transexuals' claims are about the contents of their minds. They are fundamentally different categories of claims.

And yet again I disagree for the reasons already given.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

You're still not getting it. I wasn't making a comparison with Alan's opinions on gender or language. I was making a comparison of Alan's perception of reality with a transexual whose perception of their reality is that they are a man or a woman regardless of their biology or anatomy and how society is accommodating of their reality that their essence or authentic self has been born in the wrong body. I also pointed out that society is accommodating of the perception that  judges should treat behaviour based on intentions differently from behaviour based on biochemistry.

You’re problem here is that I’m “getting it” better than you would like me to, which is why I know you made a category error with the false equivalence of gender, and that you’ve repeated the same error here re transsexualism. Gender, transsexualism etc are subjective – they concern how the individual believes him/herself to be; biochemistry on the other hand is objectively measurable using various metrics.     

As for how Alan intends his claims to be treated, as I said before I think your assessment of the words in his post is wrong, for the reasons I have already given. But then I dismiss your interpretation of many other posts on the basis that your efforts reflect your bias. Just a couple of examples of what Alan has written that led me to my assessment are:

Reply #33831
"I do my best to answer according to what I genuinely believe to be the truth - which is not just based upon my religious belief"

Reply #33843
"Sorry, but this explanation falls so far short of reality that I cannot give it any credence.  My will must be driven by my conscious awareness, otherwise I could not consciously interact with this world.  To claim that everything is predetermined before we become aware of it does not reflect our basic sense of reality."

Except these quotes are entirely irrelevant, and the only “bias” here concerns your frankly bizarre re-interpretation of the plain words he uses into something else entirely.

The quotes are irrelevant because all that tells us if that he tries to be honest in his replies (which isn’t true by the way, but that’s another matter) and no-one says that he doesn’t say that. What he also says though is that his unqualified opinions about various things – “souls” etc – are also objectively true facts for the rest of us.

Your “interpretation” problem concerns trying to tell us that the plain words he uses to this effect in fact mean something else entirely. That I suspect is why you shifted ground in subsequent posts away from telling us that you were “interpreting” what he said (presumably because you knew the game was up on that one) and instead told us you were just choosing how to treat his claims, which us a different matter. You really need to decide which one you’re actually saying here: if it’s that you interpret his posts to say something other than what they actually say then you’re stuck with your problem; if you’re now telling us instead how you choose to treat his posts that’s a matter for you.   

I don't have a problem with you dismissing my interpretations if you don't understand them.

What a bizarre thing to say. Of course I understand them. Your problem in fact is that I do, so I can see that your “interpretations” have nothing to do with what he actually says. You’re no more interpreting his replies than I’m interpreting your replies to claim that you think you’re a shape-shifting alien lizard. That’s not interpretation – it’s reinvention.     

Nope - I was interpreting words he had written as well as stating how I treat his claims. But I am fine with you not agreeing with my interpretations of his words or dismissing my interpretations or however you want to describe what you think you are doing in response to my posts.

See above. Interpreting and reinventing are different things.

I call that "agreeing to disagree" but how you choose to describe it is up to you.

Only if you think we’re agreeing to disagree too about my “interpretation” of your replies to be telling us that you’re an alien shape shifting lizard with a penchant for pickled eggs on Fridays. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

And yet again I disagree for the reasons already given.

You might disagree, but it can't be for the reasons you've already given because you haven't given any reasons that address the problem you gave yourself.