Universalism

[Gordon]

Gordon,
You appear to be somewhat selective in the posts you respond to because, I suspect, that you look for things you deem to be fallacious arguments.

In your case, Alan, the fallacies are hard to avoid.

But you, along with others, seem to ignore or overlook some of the deeper points I make - such as the ultimate cause of me typing these keys, or how the content of many brain cells get perceived by the single entity which is you, or what can provide the continuity in You, when all your parts get replaced, or the question of what is in control - is it You or the uncontrolled deterministic rules of science?  You may well try to write all these off as personal incredulity, but this does not make them go away, and there is still the big question of what is driving my personal incredulity?

You're certainly a dab hand with the deepities, Alan: there's no doubting that.

Is it just down to natural uncontrollable causes, or is it the free spirit which is Me?

It is you Alan, doing what your biology drives you to do: in your case you've decided 'God' and tried to support that with a bunch of fallacious arguments. 

[Alan Burns]

It'd be painful therefore to realise that they're imaginary ....

But if I am totally controlled by natural uncontrollable events, where does this concept of "imaginary" actually come from?  What is it that "imagines"?

[Alan Burns]

in your case you've decided 'God' and tried to support that with a bunch of fallacious arguments.

At least you have conceded that it is "Me" that decides 

[Gordon]

At least you have conceded that it is "Me" that decides 

Indeed I did, although I did specify the biological you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But if I am totally controlled by natural uncontrollable events, where does this concept of "imaginary" actually come from?  What is it that "imagines"?

Who is this "I" of whom you speak?

Your question wrongly assumes there to be an "I" independent of the physical stuff of which you consist. The concept "comes from" your consciousness, which is itself an emergent property of trillions of connections between the neurons in your brain. If you find out something about emergence you'll have a better chance of understanding this.

[Rhiannon]

Have we established yet why some Christians dislike the concept of universal salvation?

[Sebastian Toe]

So what happens to this little man at the controls when the body dies?  His awareness of this physical universe may no longer be there because he has lost the window into it, but the awareness which is You may have a new window into something else.

Whatever it is it wont be 'you' though will it?
No memories of 'you' or your loved ones or even that you existed on earth at all.
So just what do you think that there will 'be' to be aware of?

[Alan Burns]

If you find out something about emergence you'll have a better chance of understanding this.

But nothing actually emerges.  Emergence is just a perceived complexity or functionality as seen from outside. 

Conscious awareness requires a recipient of information which is impossible to define in material terms.

[Shaker]

Have we established yet why some Christians dislike the concept of universal salvation?

I assume that it's due to the belief that some don't deserve it - that if salvation comes to everyone without exception (eventually) it removes any need/incentive for moral behaviour, and doesn't distinguish between Desmond Tutu and Peter Sutcliffe.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

IBut nothing actually emerges.  Emergence is just a perceived complexity or functionality as seen from outside. 

Conscious awareness requires a recipient of information which is impossible to define in material terms.

This kind of response is exactly why I said you need to understand something of emergence before replying. What emerges is consciousness - there is no "outside" and no "recipient". It's consciousness that you perceives itself as "you". The Cartesian split you're attempting has long been abandoned by thinkers and more recently by the findings of neuroscience - you might as well be saying over and over, "but it's Thor who causes thunder" while ignoring the evidence all around you to the contrary.

You seem to have a huge mental block about this - presumably because you've built on the mistake the edifice of a religious belief you find to be comforting. There are though theists who understand this better than you who don't rely on conjectures about a separate "I" but who still believe in their various gods. All I can say is that, if you really find the thought of "God" to be comforting, you don't have to cling to your profound misunderstanding of the facts to keep it. 

[Stranger]

Conscious awareness requires a recipient of information which is impossible to define in material terms.

Wow - been away from the forum for ages and the first thing I read is AB making the same old dishonest claims...

In order to make this statement honest you would need to understand exactly what conscious awareness is and how it works and then have a full knowledge of what is possible in "material terms".

We established some time ago that you don't know how conscious awareness works and that you can't define it in any terms (material or otherwise) and nobody seriously claims to have a full knowledge of the physical universe.

Isn't it about time you stopped being dishonest..?

[Shaker]

Welcome back, SKoS. Hope you stick around - several waifs and strays have returned to the fold recently.

[Brownie]

Wow - been away from the forum for ages and the first thing I read is AB making the same old dishonest claims...
--------------
-------------------
Isn't it about time you stopped being dishonest..?

Definition of DISHONEST:
adjective
behaving or prone to behave in an untrustworthy, deceitful, or insincere way.
"he was a dishonest hypocrite prepared to exploit his family"
synonyms:   fraudulent, corrupt, swindling, cheating, double-dealing; More
intended to mislead or cheat.
"he gave the editor a dishonest account of events"

In order to be dishonest there has to be intent.  AB is perfectly sincere.

Anyway good for you coming back, as Shaker says a few waifs and strays have returned recently.  Others have gone for good, booted out the back door.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Brownie,

Definition of DISHONEST:
adjective
behaving or prone to behave in an untrustworthy, deceitful, or insincere way.
"he was a dishonest hypocrite prepared to exploit his family"
synonyms:   fraudulent, corrupt, swindling, cheating, double-dealing; More
intended to mislead or cheat.
"he gave the editor a dishonest account of events"

In order to be dishonest there has to be intent.  AB is perfectly sincere.

Anyway good for you coming back, as Shaker says a few waifs and strays have returned recently.  Others have gone for good, booted out the back door.

But what word would you use for someone who says the equivalent of, "Thor causes thunder", has the facts explained to him, then repeats "Thor causes thunder" endlessly no matter how much his mistake is explained while never once attempting even to engage with the reason and evidence that undoes him?

That seems to me to be a type of dishonesty at least.

[Nearly Sane]

Brownie,

But what word would you use for someone who says the equivalent of, "Thor causes thunder", has the facts explained to him, then repeats "Thor causes thunder" endlessly no matter how much his mistake is explained while never once attempting even to engage with the reason and evidence that undoes him?

That seems to me to be a type of dishonesty at least.

Surely the issue is that the person would have to accept that they were facts rather than you just saying they were?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#131

No-one says that the evidence for an explanation "disproves" conjectures about a different one. Lots of people have seen babies born, but that doesn't disprove the conjecture that they're just brainwashed to think that by the stork that actually flies them through the window.

Your "soul" conjecture is equivalent here to the stork conjecture. There's strong evidence for consciousness being an emergent property of the physical stuff of which we're made, just as there's strong evidence of babies coming from women's tums. Neither evidence though disproves alternative conjectures even though there's no evidence for them whatever, especially when you also assert for them magical properties. 

In short, you've just fallen back into the negative proof fallacy. As it's been explained to you many time now, my question is: why?

Taking the last question first: Possibly because he disagrees with you?

You claim that he has fallen back into the negative proof fallacy. All you have done is set up a scenario that you claim is unfalsifiable, claim that Alan’s position is similar, then claim the NPF. It is not an approach based on properties of truth.

Go into any primary school of your choice and see how many children will give you any kind of alternative explanation as to where babies come from. Are you really claiming that the conjecture they're just brainwashed to think that by the stork that actually flies them through the window is not falsifiable? So every woman on the planet who has ever given birth, every midwife, every eye-witness present at a birth are all potentially wrong?

Really?

Seriously? ? ?

Even if I were to briefly entertain your stork conjecture, what evidence supports it? Your alleged claim that it is unfalsifiable, then applied to Alan’s position is yet another illustration of your circular reasoning approach. You make an assumption about his position and then create an argument to try and justify your assumption.

The circular nature of your reasoning has been pointed out to you twice already this year, both times by the same non-theist, yet you persist with it. Why?

[Rhiannon]

Surely the issue is that the person would have to accept that they were facts rather than you just saying they were?

Yes, to someone who believes 'Thor causes thunder' any other explanation isn't factual - they believe 'alternative facts'.

[Nearly Sane]

#131
Taking the last question first: Possibly because he disagrees with you?

You claim that he has fallen back into the negative proof fallacy. All you have done is set up a scenario that you claim is unfalsifiable, claim that Alan’s position is similar, then claim the NPF. It is not an approach based on properties of truth.

Go into any primary school of your choice and see how many children will give you any kind of alternative explanation as to where babies come from. Are you really claiming that the conjecture they're just brainwashed to think that by the stork that actually flies them through the window is not falsifiable? So every woman on the planet who has ever given birth, every midwife, every eye-witness present at a birth are all potentially wrong?

Really?

Seriously? ? ?

Even if I were to briefly entertain your stork conjecture, what evidence supports it? Your alleged claim that it is unfalsifiable, then applied to Alan’s position is yet another illustration of your circular reasoning approach. You make an assumption about his position and then create an argument to try and justify your assumption.

The circular nature of your reasoning has been pointed out to you twice already this year, both times by the same non-theist, yet you persist with it. Why?

that seems to be so divorced from, and such a misrepresentation of bluehillside's position that it must have taken quite a lot of effort. I recommend you have a nice cup of tea and reread what was said.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, to someone who believes 'Thor causes thunder' any other explanation isn't factual - they believe 'alternative facts'.

but they aren't being dishonest.

[Rhiannon]

but they aren't being dishonest.

Nope.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Surely the issue is that the person would have to accept that they were facts rather than you just saying they were?

But it's not a matter of someone "just saying" facts. If someone says, "2+2=5", has presented to him the logic that falsifies that, ignores that logic entirely and just repeats, "2+2=5" endlessly then it's the refusal to address the argument that seems to me to be a type of dishonesty.

I'd have no problem if instead he said, "OK - I've considered your logic/evidence and I think it's wrong for the following reasons". There'd be disagreement and perhaps further discussion, but at least it would be an honest exchange. Where's the honesty though in asserting "2+2=5" on an endless loop?     

[Shaker]

Taking the last question first: Possibly because he disagrees with you?

Here's another question. How many times does it have to be explained to someone that they have no grounds for disagreement because that disagreement rests on (1) no evidence and/or (2) a logical fallacy of some sort before one begins to suspect either obtuseness or even deliberate dishonesty in them?

A lot of people have spent a lot of time over a long period saying: your argment is invalid and your logic illegitimate. If those arguments and that poor reasoning persists, that's more than mere disagreement.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

but they aren't being dishonest.

Even when overwhelming evidence to the contrary is shown to them and they just ignore it and assert the Thor claim again?

[Brownie]

Hullo Sword, long time no see.

I am not going to copy all of your long post, anyone is capable of going back and reading it for context.  You said:
Taking the last question first: Possibly because he disagrees with you?

Yes. 
Disagreeing should not be a hanging offence on a discussion forum.  We all disagree, that's what it's about.

The circular nature of your reasoning has been pointed out to you twice already this year, both times by the same non-theist, yet you persist with it.


Yes.  Double standards.

[Rhiannon]

NS,

But it's not a matter of someone "just saying" facts. If someone says, "2+2=5", has presented to him the logic that falsifies that, ignores that logic entirely and just repeats, "2+2=5" endlessly then it's the refusal to address the argument that seems to me to be a type of dishonesty.

I'd have no problem if instead he said, "OK - I've considered your logic/evidence and I think it's wrong for the following reasons". There'd be disagreement and perhaps further discussion, but at least it would be an honest exchange. Where's the honesty though in asserting "2+2=5" on an endless loop?     

But to people back in the day a god creating thunder was in it way a logical explanation for it in the absence of other understanding. If a devotee of Thor today still believes that it is because faith and logic don't belong together so much these days.  That's still a different thing from bean counting and then making up an answer.