Searching for GOD...

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

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.     

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.   

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.     

See above. Interpreting and reinventing are different things.

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.

I don't have a problem. I don't mind that you are still not getting it, although you are of course free to believe that you are, and are free to continue to write posts that don't address the point i am making and to continue to believe that the thoughts, feelings and motivations you ascribe to me are in fact my own thoughts. It is after all your usual style of posting on this forum.

My point of comparison addressed a transgender activist argument that you are what you claim you are regardless of biology because there is an innate you that trumps biology and other people are required by law to accept your claim as fact. Hence, for example, you can change the sex on your birth certificate, because your biology is not fact so your biological sex is just something that is assigned to you at birth based on beliefs (i.e. a social construct) and not based on science.

The argument then becomes that gender identity is not a social construct or a belief but is fact based on an innate gender - which seems to be a form of mind-body duality.  So while non-human mammals are considered male or female based on biological evidence, the claims of trans people are accommodated without the need for objective evidence. So my point was that society accommodates such claims of duality as reality or fact without the need for objective evidence to support those claims, and this is done based on a subjective feeling of reality. And i compared this to Alan's perception of reality based on the words he wrote about...well, his beliefs about reality.

That you interpret Alan's words in a different way from me is fine - it is to be expected on a forum that there will be disagreement. That you insist that I am not interpreting and am reinventing is also fine as this forum is a place where people are free to state their beliefs.

An alternative view to the above trans argument, which may not be currently politically acceptable, is that biological sex is fact and not a belief and therefore any transgender activist claims that their innate feelings are fact should not be considered established fact by society.

But as i said, if you continue believing that your interpretation of Alan's posts and my posts are objectively right, that is of course something for you to deal with. I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me or believing you know what I am thinking or believing you know what is right.

[SusanDoris]

Gabriella

I wonder if you could  provide a three or four short sentences clear résumé of that post - I for one would really appreciate it.
That is a straightforward request - no sarcasm included.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella

I wonder if you could  provide a three or four short sentences clear résumé of that post - I for one would really appreciate it.
That is a straightforward request - no sarcasm included.

Susan, given the complexity of metaphysical discussions, I think it's beyond my capabilities to simplify it. For a start I am not sure which words are problematic for you.

If you want it in list format ok:

• Some trans activist arguments seem to display dualism i.e. an innate immaterial “you” who is conscious of being born in the wrong material body, as opposed to accepting the body you have and putting it in a dress if you like dresses.
  
  
• I compared that dualism to some of the arguments that Alan makes that display dualism, such as a “you” that is conscious of and can influence the material brain. Researchers are looking into how conscious awareness works and a lot is unknown so no clear answer yet.
  
  
• I then commented that society seems to advocate that the perceptions of reality of a dualist on trans issues (or I also mentioned judicial sentencing and dualism), should be accepted by the rest of us as objectively true i.e. their reality should be our reality (e.g. by altering legal identity documents) regardless of contrary biological evidence that would apply to non-human mammals but is considered irrelevant for humans.
  
  
• I'm not looking at the detail of Alan's dualism narrative.  I'm just saying I don't have a problem if Alan extrapolates his perception that dualism is true to others, as he believes that is 'reality' and he can’t believe otherwise, as much as BHS apparently can’t believe that Alan’s posts could be interpreted in the way I interpret them.
  
  

If you want an example of a trans activist's true for you claim, you can apparently be accused of being transphobic if you are a straight man who does not want to date a trans woman because you think she is not a woman. She may even have legal ID stating she is a woman.

https://medium.com/@kitmalone/the-moral-cowardice-of-cis-men-92fca7b05c90

[Spud]

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?

Sorry for the late reply, Susan. Wasn't sure how to answer your question at first, but a comment has come to mind from a friend who on his birthday a long time ago got a card from his Gran. In it she wrote something like "don't forget that the greatest joy in life comes from helping someone." I think this may have been the kind of self denial Jesus was talking about.

Here is a good explanation of the difference between soul and spirit:

https://activechristianity.org/soul-vs-spirit-what-is-the-difference

[SusanDoris]

Gabriella

thank you for your reply. I'll read it again later. 

Spud

Thank you for your reply. Unsurprisingly, I still think your ideas of God, spirit/soul, etc are nothing to do with reality,. but I'll follow the link and see if I have any more comments!!

 

[torridon]

Here is a good explanation of the difference between soul and spirit:

https://activechristianity.org/soul-vs-spirit-what-is-the-difference

The article linked makes a virtue out of the abandonment of reason in favour of faith without addressing how you would determine if you have the correct faith in the first place.  This makes no sense to me; why would a God give us the power to reason with but expect us to abandon it.  To advocate for the abandonment of reason is a pernicious, dangerous ideology.

[Alan Burns]

    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.

If life was a natural consequence of random events, our universe would be teeming with life, but to date this tiny speck of cooling star debris we call earth is the only known source of life.

As I said previously, we are so surrounded by God's creativity on this earth that we take it all for granted and presume it to be natural.  But space exploration shows the natural state of the universe outside this earth to be hostile to life as we know it.

[Gordon]

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


If life was a natural consequence of random events, our universe would be teeming with life, but to date this tiny speck of cooling star debris we call earth is the only known source of life.

As I said previously, we are so surrounded by God's creativity on this earth that we take it all for granted and presume it to be natural.  But space exploration shows the natural state of the universe outside this earth to be hostile to life as we know it.

The universe is big - really big - and since we know very little about it as regards other places that might be conducive to forms of life, on account of the obvious fact that our scope for investigation is limited by said bigness, would you not agree that you are being a tad presumptive?

[torridon]

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


If life was a natural consequence of random events, our universe would be teeming with life, but to date this tiny speck of cooling star debris we call earth is the only known source of life.

As I said previously, we are so surrounded by God's creativity on this earth that we take it all for granted and presume it to be natural.  But space exploration shows the natural state of the universe outside this earth to be hostile to life as we know it.

You make no sense.  If the universe was created by a god with the intention of creating life, why make the universe hostile to life ?  Your thinking is entirely baffling.

[Stranger]

If life was a natural consequence of random events, our universe would be teeming with life, but to date this tiny speck of cooling star debris we call earth is the only known source of life.

Total nonsense. Nobody suggests that just any set of random events leads to life. Life requires specific conditions.

As I said previously, we are so surrounded by God's creativity on this earth that we take it all for granted and presume it to be natural.  But space exploration shows the natural state of the universe outside this earth to be hostile to life as we know it.

Which is a good argument that the universe wasn't deigned for life...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You make no sense.  If the universe was created by a god with the intention of creating life, why make the universe hostile to life ?  Your thinking is entirely baffling.

On what criteria are you using to say the universe is hostile to life?
In terms of chemistry and physics the universe has laws and has changed in a way that favours life and that does not include the type of life that is beyond our present experience...a notion held by one of the chief antitheistic scientists Sean Carroll.

[torridon]

On what criteria are you using to say the universe is hostile to life?
In terms of chemistry and physics the universe has laws and has changed in a way that favours life and that does not include the type of life that is beyond our present experience...a notion held by one of the chief antitheistic scientists Sean Carroll.

That was Alan's claim, not mine.

[jeremyp]

On what criteria are you using to say the universe is hostile to life?

Travel 100 miles straight up or 100 miles straight down and you are in an environment in which life does not exist. Give it a couple of billion years and the Sun will be so hot that all the water and oxygen on the planet will boil away into space and then life will cease to exist.

Even if life is found to exist elsewhere in the Universe, compared to all the places it can't exist, it will still be nothing to a first approximation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Travel 100 miles straight up or 100 miles straight down and you are in an environment in which life does not exist. Give it a couple of billion years and the Sun will be so hot that all the water and oxygen on the planet will boil away into space and then life will cease to exist.

Even if life is found to exist elsewhere in the Universe, compared to all the places it can't exist, it will still be nothing to a first approximation.

The solar environment of the future is not the universe

[jeremyp]

The solar environment of the future is not the universe

No. Most of the rest of the Universe is even more hostile to life.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I don't have a problem. I don't mind that you are still not getting it, although you are of course free to believe that you are, and are free to continue to write posts that don't address the point i am making and to continue to believe that the thoughts, feelings and motivations you ascribe to me are in fact my own thoughts. It is after all your usual style of posting on this forum.

My point of comparison addressed a transgender activist argument that you are what you claim you are regardless of biology because there is an innate you that trumps biology and other people are required by law to accept your claim as fact. Hence, for example, you can change the sex on your birth certificate, because your biology is not fact so your biological sex is just something that is assigned to you at birth based on beliefs (i.e. a social construct) and not based on science.

The argument then becomes that gender identity is not a social construct or a belief but is fact based on an innate gender - which seems to be a form of mind-body duality.  So while non-human mammals are considered male or female based on biological evidence, the claims of trans people are accommodated without the need for objective evidence. So my point was that society accommodates such claims of duality as reality or fact without the need for objective evidence to support those claims, and this is done based on a subjective feeling of reality. And i compared this to Alan's perception of reality based on the words he wrote about...well, his beliefs about reality.

That you interpret Alan's words in a different way from me is fine - it is to be expected on a forum that there will be disagreement. That you insist that I am not interpreting and am reinventing is also fine as this forum is a place where people are free to state their beliefs.

An alternative view to the above trans argument, which may not be currently politically acceptable, is that biological sex is fact and not a belief and therefore any transgender activist claims that their innate feelings are fact should not be considered established fact by society.

But as i said, if you continue believing that your interpretation of Alan's posts and my posts are objectively right, that is of course something for you to deal with. I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me or believing you know what I am thinking or believing you know what is right.

Doubtless all this meant something to you when you typed it. Just to re-cap the relevant points though:

1. AB has asserted (and continues to assert) an objective, “out there” supposed fact about an entity he calls “soul” that’s a truth for everyone if only the rest of us could see it.

2. You then tried a series of irrelevant responses about how he’s describing accurately his perception of something. They’re irrelevant because no-one doubts that he’s describing his perception, any more than we would doubt your perception that the Eiffel tower exists. The point though remains that he’s overreaching by claiming as a fact something he has no means to establish is a fact rather than just an opinion, and a self-contradictory one at that. That’s the “experience of vs explanation for” question he always runs away from.

That is, you conflated the method of the argument (personal perception) with its content (supposed fact).

3. You then told us that this wasn’t what you were doing (wrongly as it happens), but that instead you were just “interpreting” what he said. When it was explained to you that interpretation involves explaining what’s actually said rather than re-inventing it you shifted ground briefly by telling us that what you were really doing was just telling us how you treat his claims and assertions, but then you reverted to the interpretation line even though it had already been falsified.

4. At various times you tried to draw an analogy with claims of objectively true facts about the universe (eg, “soul”) with subjective, experiential categorisations (gender, transsexualism). When that category error was explained to you rather than address the problem you just doubled down on the mistake by repeating it. I still don’t know why you think them to be analogous because for some reason you seem to be unwilling or unable to tells us, preferring instead to tell us that you’ve already addressed the problem even though you’ve done no such thing.   

So where all that leaves us is with AB’s continued use of mindless, self-contradictory and epistemologically worthless assertions of fact, and with your circumlocutions around that that never seem to get to the central problem that they are mindless, self-contradictory and epistemologically worthless assertions of fact.             

[SusanDoris]

AB

How about you having a go at explaining how and why one of the reasons we have here on Earth millions of living species, and had millions more which became extinct, is because this planet has an atmosphere? What arguments do you make to yourself  why the God you believe in created such an atmosphere on just this planet?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Doubtless all this meant something to you when you typed it. Just to re-cap the relevant points though:

1. AB has asserted (and continues to assert) an objective, “out there” supposed fact about an entity he calls “soul” that’s a truth for everyone if only the rest of us could see it.

2. You then tried a series of irrelevant responses about how he’s describing accurately his perception of something. They’re irrelevant because no-one doubts that he’s describing his perception, any more than we would doubt your perception that the Eiffel tower exists. The point though remains that he’s overreaching by claiming as a fact something he has no means to establish is a fact rather than just an opinion, and a self-contradictory one at that. That’s the “experience of vs explanation for” question he always runs away from.

That is, you conflated the method of the argument (personal perception) with its content (supposed fact).

3. You then told us that this wasn’t what you were doing (wrongly as it happens), but that instead you were just “interpreting” what he said. When it was explained to you that interpretation involves explaining what’s actually said rather than re-inventing it you shifted ground briefly by telling us that what you were really doing was just telling us how you treat his claims and assertions, but then you reverted to the interpretation line even though it had already been falsified.

4. At various times you tried to draw an analogy with claims of objectively true facts about the universe (eg, “soul”) with subjective, experiential categorisations (gender, transsexualism). When that category error was explained to you rather than address the problem you just doubled down on the mistake by repeating it. I still don’t know why you think them to be analogous because for some reason you seem to be unwilling or unable to tells us, preferring instead to tell us that you’ve already addressed the problem even though you’ve done no such thing.   

So where all that leaves us is with AB’s continued use of mindless, self-contradictory and epistemologically worthless assertions of fact, and with your circumlocutions around that that never seem to get to the central problem that they are mindless, self-contradictory and epistemologically worthless assertions of fact.             

As I said, I don't mind if you want to believe your recap is correct, and it's fine if you're not getting my explanations of the comparison I made between dualism in some trans arguments being accommodated and AB's dualism being accommodated.

It's also fine if you think I haven't addressed the problem. I don't intend re-writing the posts again since they haven't been deleted.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

As I said, I don't mind if you want to believe your recap is correct,…

It is.

…and it's fine if you're not getting my explanations of the comparison I made between dualism in some trans arguments being accommodated and AB's dualism being accommodated.

I am “getting” them – that’s why I know that they fail for the reason I’ve given (conflation of the objective with the subjective) and you’ve ignored. What I don’t know (because you won’t tell us) is why you think objective claims are analogous with subjective ones.

It's also fine if you think I haven't addressed the problem. I don't intend re-writing the posts again since they haven't been deleted.

No-one’s asking you to re-write anything. If you think you’ve explained why objective claims are analogous with subjective ones, just tells us where you did it. 

[Alan Burns]

Life requires specific conditions.

Yes, very specific.

Which is a good argument that the universe wasn't deigned for life...

But you have no idea what comprises a "design for life".  Where would one start?  Perhaps with a big explosion of energy followed by several billion years of intelligently guided manipulation of the consequences of this explosion?  Or can you come up with something better?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

If life was a natural consequence of random events our universe would be teeming with life, but to date this tiny speck of cooling star debris we call earth is the only known source of life.

First, there’s no reason to think that it would be “teeming with life” at all.

Second, for all you knows it is teeming with life – or at least has a great deal more of it than the minuscule part of it our life-identifying instruments can currently analyse.

Third, it’s entirely possible that countless civilisations have already arisen and then disappeared over the 14 billion-odd years we know the universe we observe to have existed.

You assertion is akin to claiming there to be no (and never to have been) life on Earth outside your house because you’ve knocked on all the doors in your street and found the houses to be empty.     

As I said previously, we are so surrounded by God's creativity on this earth…

Argument by assertion. Just saying something doesn’t make it true.

…that we take it all for granted and presume it to be natural.

We don’t presume that at all – we provisionally conclude that to be the case because all of the only evidence we have tells us that it is.

But space exploration shows the natural state of the universe outside this earth to be hostile to life as we know it.

No it doesn't. Space exploration tells us only that the relatively tiny, tiny, tiny part of the universe we've been able to explore so far is hostile to our type of life. So?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

It is.

I don't mind if you stick to your beliefs that you are correct.

I am “getting” them – that’s why I know that they fail for the reason I’ve given (conflation of the objective with the subjective) and you’ve ignored. What I don’t know (because you won’t tell us) is why you think objective claims are analogous with subjective ones.

That's your interpretation of what I wrote, not mine.

No-one’s asking you to re-write anything. If you think you’ve explained why objective claims are analogous with subjective ones, just tells us where you did it.

That's your interpretation of what I wrote, not mine. Therefore, not much point in referring you to my posts as you've already read them and formed your interpretation.

And yes I am aware that you believe that your interpretation is the only correct reading "of the plain words" that someone else uses. We already had this argument over the Catholic schools document and didn't get anywhere with it. You continued to believe your interpretation was correct and I continued to believe that my interpretation was correct. 

[Stranger]

But you have no idea what comprises a "design for life".  Where would one start?  Perhaps with a big explosion of energy followed by several billion years of intelligently guided manipulation of the consequences of this explosion?  Or can you come up with something better?

Yes: just design and build something that is suitable for life from the start and then place the life directly in it.

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I don't mind if you stick to your beliefs that you are correct.

And I don’t mind if you want to cling to your alternative facts Kellyanne.

That's your interpretation of what I wrote, not mine.

It’s not an interpretation of what you said – it’s a repetition of it. If you now want to say that you don’t think objective claims of fact (“soul”) to be analogous with subjective statements of belief (gender, transsexualism) then by all means retract. 

That's your interpretation of what I wrote, not mine. Therefore, not much point in referring you to my posts as you've already read them and formed your interpretation.

So you can’t tell us where you said the thing you claimed you’d said after all.

Funny that.

And yes I am aware that you believe that your interpretation is the only correct reading "of the plain words" that someone else uses.

Wrong again. Words have meanings, usually described in books called dictionaries. If you want to adduce your own personal meanings for them instead though, that’s a matter for you but it makes any dialogue meaningless.

We already had this argument over the Catholic schools document and didn't get anywhere with it. You continued to believe your interpretation was correct and I continued to believe that my interpretation was correct.

You’re abusing the term “believe” again here – mine is objectively verifiable; yours is unqualified opinion. People believe lots of things, but there are different categories of belief. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Incidentally, this is the post you made (33909) that attempts an analogy between “soul” and gender.

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 it helps you, an analogy is "a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification". Now look at that, "is any more problematic than other beliefs in concepts that people never agree on". Can you see the comparison you tried there? That's what "analogy" means for Pete's sake.

Your response to questioning about the attempted analogy (“That's your interpretation of what I wrote, not mine”) seems to me to therefore to be pretty epic avoidance.

Clearly moreover for epistemological purposes “soul” is more problematic than gender self-identification because the former concerns a claim of an objective fact about the world and the latter is subjective opinion validated only by the feelings of the individual concerned. Would you say though that, say, flat earth beliefs are analogous to gender beliefs too because people disagree about them, or do you reserve a special place only for the claim of objective fact “soul” for the purpose of your analogy?