Hi BHS
That’s a category error I think. You and I could talk quite readily about the experience “love” because, presumably, we’ve both had it so there’d be common ground even though we were discussing a subjective emotion. By contract, if you want to call “god” an objective fact and to talk to me about it I have no idea what you mean (ie, I’m an ignostic). You may as well say “U&Y*&” for all the sense it makes to me so there’s no common ground at all. Of course you could say you feel love for your belief “god” (just as I may feel love for my belief “8o87t”), but that’s a different matter.
In so much as that I have an attachment to the concept of God that I have created in my mind, yes. As I have said before gods cannot be described as objective fact because the methodology to prove objective facts does not apply to the concept of gods so I think we are in agreement that defining the argument in terms of a God that is objective fact is not relevant in your discussion with me. AB might assert gods and free will as objective fact but given he has failed to come up with any of the evidence required to support a claim of objective fact, his assertions have been dismissed by many posters, but of course he is free to continue with his evangelical posts.
My point was that the word "love" is just a label attached to subjective sensations, many of which are interpreted by individuals in a way that often leads to illogical, highly dysfunctional, often self-destructive behaviour e.g. the over-indulgence of children, which could be considered as a form of emotional abuse. So it may be that the only common ground would be that "love" is a feeling of attachment.
I think the word "God" is one label attached to the abstract thought and interpretation of searches for meaning in what we observe and feel and remember, possibly through the use of autobiographical memories. It may be that you are saying you have never experienced the feeling of searching for meaning? In which case, yes we have no common ground for the sensation.
Yes they do, and then they get angry too with person who explains that they’ve been lied to rather than with the people who did the lying. People eh? What I was saying though was that nonetheless the objects of the disagreements (£350m on the side of the bus for example) are at least comprehensible to both sides because they’re articulated in a common language even though they may have opposing opinions about them.
Yes but I am less concerned with the lies and more interested in the sensations they feel - the Brexit campaign seemed to have tapped into these feelings that people were unable to articulate in any kind of logical way, and this may be one of the reasons why we now have Boris Johnson in power - it seems he gave some voice to those feelings, if you believe the interviews with traditional Labour voters who voted Conservative.
Um, if it’s eternal then it didn’t begin. That’s what “eternal” means ; - )
Which does not make sense in a world where we operate using the concept of time on the assumption that everything has a beginning.
Yes, but that’s the tail wagging the dog: I want this concept to work, therefore I have to suspend reality to make it work. Would it not be better to start with reality and then to conclude that the concept cannot therefore work?
It might be - it depends on how easy it is for an individual to dismiss the sensations they feel that they have interpreted into a concept that enriches and adds meaning to their life. If, as has been discussed endlessly on here, individuals cannot choose what they desire and they desire meaning, and their abstract concept of God generates the feelings of meaning that satisfy their desire, then they will be unable to come to the conclusion you suggest.
