Dissociative Identity Disorder and the Soul

[ProfessorDavey]

Then you have a philosophy which leads you to that stance. And that philosophy is more than likely unfalsifiable.

If it doesn't come with curry sauce then I am not interested.

Indeed philosophies are unfalsifiable, but they are accepted to be subjective 'true for me' stuff, not as something objectively true.

So if you want to argue that god exists only in a subjective manner - in other word only exists in the minds of people who believe he/she/it exists, but doesn't exist in any objective manner, then fine by me. But I don't think that's what most theists think at all - they think that god exists ... objectively ... for everyone.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indeed philosophies are unfalsifiable, but they are accepted to be subjective 'true for me' stuff, not as something objectively true.

Look, the notion that the only things that exist are those which can be empirically evidenced......or, alternatively the only things that exist are physical are, if true, true for everybody so that rather scuppers your argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you believe in a god, you must be convinced that it exists.

I just wonder why you are convinced and what was the evidence that convinced you. If it is personal revelation, I am not interesed, as that is personal.

Convinced or scientifically concluded?....make your mind up. I've already told you I am persuaded by experience and argument.

At least you have not actually claimed to be right. Interest waxes and wanes doesn't it?

[BeRational]

Convinced or scientifically concluded?....make your mind up. I've already told you I am persuaded by experience and argument.

At least you have not actually claimed to be right. Interest waxes and wanes doesn't it?

If you believe in a god, you must be convinced.

I just wonder what was the evidence that convinced you.
Personal experience is not interesting, as other have personal experience that leads them to other god or no gods.
Arguments are okay up to a point, but they must have evidence to back them up, otherwise it's just fantasy.

[ProfessorDavey]

Look, the notion that the only things that exist are those which can be empirically evidenced.....

If they are claimed to be objectively true then sure they should be able to subject to verification through evidence. There are, of course, other things which exist in a subjective manner (e.g. my preferences, which are true for me but not necessarily true for you) and also things which are perception based but not really objective - so we humans ascribe certain emotional reactions responses etc as 'love' and while that is incredibly important to us it cannot be considered to be objectively true as other species etc may have completely different behavioural features which means other emotions are incredibly important. However the underlying physiology that drives what we call love (endocrine, neuronal) can be verified via evidence to be objectively true.

But the point is that theists, and particularly christians, typically seem clear that god objectively exists - he/she/it isn't just the external description of an internal feelings, nor just a subjective 'true for me' but actually, really objectively exists and indeed always existed so the notion of god in relation to humans who have only been around for a blink of an eye in cosmic time seems completely irrelevant. If god exists as described in an objective sense then god would similarly exist regardless of relations with people and indeed would still objectively exist even if humans never existed.

[ProfessorDavey]

Personal experience is not interesting, as other have personal experience that leads them to other god or no gods.

Spot on - and people can, of course, have exactly the same experience and interpret it in different ways.

So I used the example of the sun going round the earth and vice verse. Each is based on the same experience of seeing the sun and planets rise, traverse across the sky and then set. But some people interpreted this as the sun and panets going around the earth, others as the earth and planets going around the sun. But this isn't a 'true for me' thing as for the sun/earth/planets relationship either one or the other (or neither) are objectively true. Both interpretations cannot be correct.

Arguments are okay up to a point, but they must have evidence to back them up, otherwise it's just fantasy.

Absolutely - the reason why we now recognise that the earth goes around the sun rather than the other way around isn't about experience (the experiences underlying the interpretations are the same) and it isn't really about argument as once the 'argument' of the sun going around the earth prevailed (but wasn't true). The issue is evidence - it is evidence, not argument, or experience, that leads us to the truth.

[Dicky Underpants]

No the special pleading is Jeremy's as he appears to insist that a God has a creator but elsewhere suggests that the universe just is. That is the special pleading.

Alan's causative argument? what's that? I should perhaps state that I am chiefly on here for pleasure so i'm not here to fault Alan but to be all over atheist nonsense.

I don't know how we got to this rather tired old style of argumentation on this thread at all. All these matters have pretty much been done to death elsewhere, and the dead horse will probably continue to be flogged as long as the forum lasts. But preferably elsewhere.
I'll make one last ditch attempt to steer the conversation back to where the thread started - to the medical phenomena mentioned by myself and torridon. You and Alan would appear to be convinced that your controlling self is what Christians call the soul, which in some sense will continue to exist beyond death. The self and the phenomena which torridon and myself referred to are the starting point for any enquiry, before any waffle about God can begin (I think Pope wrote a rather famous poem on the subject).
I'm contending that what you call your self or soul is all too easily fragmented. Alan (and perhaps you) seems to believe that his identity remains forever intact, he will remain Alan in all his Alan-ness (and you in your Vladness) for all eternity.

The Soul Vlad, what is the Soul?

[BeRational]

Spot on - and people can, of course, have exactly the same experience and interpret it in different ways.

So I used the example of the sun going round the earth and vice verse. Each is based on the same experience of seeing the sun and planets rise, traverse across the sky and then set. But some people interpreted this as the sun and panets going around the earth, others as the earth and planets going around the sun. But this isn't a 'true for me' thing as for the sun/earth/planets relationship either one or the other (or neither) are objectively true. Both interpretations cannot be correct.
Absolutely - the reason why we now recognise that the earth goes around the sun rather than the other way around isn't about experience (the experiences underlying the interpretations are the same) and it isn't really about argument as once the 'argument' of the sun going around the earth prevailed (but wasn't true). The issue is evidence - it is evidence, not argument, or experience, that leads us to the truth.

The part about the now false belief that the sun orbits the Earth, reminds me of something I heard many years ago by James Burke, remarking about this he said
"But imagine what it would have looked like".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't know how we got to this rather tired old style of argumentation on this thread at all.

Fallacy of antiquity

All these matters have pretty much been done to death elsewhere, and the dead horse

There is no dead horse. The final word of opposition seems to be the universe just is and in that the argument is unsatisfactorily terminated with the delicious revelation that those who think it just is so shut up are fucking hypocrits

will probably continue to be flogged as long as the forum lasts. But preferably elsewhere.
I'll make one last ditch attempt to steer the conversation back to where the thread started - to the medical phenomena mentioned by myself and torridon. You and Alan would appear to be convinced that your controlling self is what Christians call the soul, which in some sense will continue to exist beyond death. The self and the phenomena which torridon and myself referred to are the starting point for any enquiry, before any waffle about God can begin (I think Pope wrote a rather famous poem on the subject).
I'm contending that what you call your self or soul is all too easily fragmented. Alan (and perhaps you) seems to believe that his identity remains forever intact, he will remain Alan in all his Alan-ness (and you in your Vladness) for all eternity.

The Soul Vlad, what is the Soul?

I'm not saying anything of the sort. As far as I am concerned you only have eternal life if you are resurrected although obviously not in your old physical body.

The soul is the self dear boy. Now I am quite prepared for this to be an emergent thing FROM or OUT OF complex physical systems but do not insist on this only operating in physical terms. If you are insisting on it itself being a complex physical system then it is down to you to elucidate that and show complete working out. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If they are claimed to be objectively true then sure they should be able to subject to verification through evidence. There are, of course, other things which exist in a subjective manner (e.g. my preferences, which are true for me but not necessarily true for you) and also things which are perception based but not really objective - so we humans ascribe certain emotional reactions responses etc as 'love' and while that is incredibly important to us it cannot be considered to be objectively true as other species etc may have completely different behavioural features which means other emotions are incredibly important. However the underlying physiology that drives what we call love (endocrine, neuronal) can be verified via evidence to be objectively true.

But the point is that theists, and particularly christians, typically seem clear that god objectively exists - he/she/it isn't just the external description of an internal feelings, nor just a subjective 'true for me' but actually, really objectively exists and indeed always existed so the notion of god in relation to humans who have only been around for a blink of an eye in cosmic time seems completely irrelevant. If god exists as described in an objective sense then god would similarly exist regardless of relations with people and indeed would still objectively exist even if humans never existed.

Christians would say that if God is real then God is the kind of thing that would be real for everyone. Just the same as if philosophical naturalism were true it would be true for everyone. The Christian God especially out of most religions doesn't lend itself as a ''true for me'' notion because of it's claims of a vital link with the world ''Creator'' and the historical claims of an incarnation...in my opinion.

[BeRational]

Christians would say that if God is real then God is the kind of thing that would be real for everyone. Just the same as if philosophical naturalism were true it would be true for everyone. The Christian God especially out of most religions doesn't lend itself as a ''true for me'' notion because of it's claims of a vital link with the world ''Creator'' and the historical claims of an incarnation...in my opinion.

I don't know what that means.

Are you saying the god you believe in is only true for you but not for me?

[ProfessorDavey]

Christians would say that if God is real then God is the kind of thing that would be real for everyone.

... The Christian God especially out of most religions doesn't lend itself as a ''true for me'' notion because of it's claims of a vital link with the world ''Creator'' and the historical claims of an incarnation...in my opinion.

Which confirms my thoughts above. Now of course if god is merely 'true for me', but not necessarily 'true for you' - in other words a manifestation of an individual's perception, opinion etc then I guess I and others would have no issue. That's fine your belief in god makes him/her/it subjectively true for you - my lack of belief in god makes god not true for me. We are both correct and we can live happily ever after.

But this isn't your view - you think god really exists in an objective sense - and therefore true for me regardless of whether I believe or not. Hence all the notion of goddodging (which makes no sense if god is subjective) etc. But if god really is objectively true then you should be able to provide evidence to demonstrate this. Of course if god is just subjective the only evidence you need is 'because I believe it to be so' - but if objective then you need objective evidence.

Just the same as if philosophical naturalism were true it would be true for everyone.

Nope poor analogy - philosophy is an opinion, not something that can every be demonstrated to be objectively true or not true. Philosophies help us to understand the world, to make decisions ourself but they don't objectively exist in any meaningful sense, nor are they designed to be able to be demonstrated to be true beyond being 'true for me' - i.e. that I find that philosophy compelling, just as I might find the music of Mozart compelling. In neither case does this mean that you must also find this philosophy/music compelling and certainly not that I can prove this philosphy or music to be compelling in an objective sense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope poor analogy - philosophy is an opinion, not something that can every be demonstrated to be objectively true or not true. Philosophies help us to understand the world, to make decisions ourself but they don't objectively exist in any meaningful sense, nor are they designed to be able to be demonstrated to be true beyond being 'true for me' - i.e. that I find that philosophy compelling, just as I might find the music of Mozart compelling. In neither case does this mean that you must also find this philosophy/music compelling and certainly not that I can prove this philosphy or music to be compelling in an objective sense.

Not really, Both Philosophical naturalism and theism are both philosophies about how the cosmos is, what it is. Philosophical naturalism is not hot on why there is a universe but each covers broadly the same territory, both are unfalsifiable. both if true would be true for everyone.

To equate theism with music is ridiculous. Don't give up your day job.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you believe in a god, you must be convinced.

I just wonder what was the evidence that convinced you.
Personal experience is not interesting, as other have personal experience that leads them to other god or no gods.
Arguments are okay up to a point, but they must have evidence to back them up, otherwise it's just fantasy.

The last sentence limits us to one philosophy. Philosophical empiricism....which unfortunately doesn't have the empirical evidence to back it up.

[BeRational]

The last sentence limits us to one philosophy. Philosophical empiricism....which unfortunately doesn't have the empirical evidence to back it up.

Obfuscation.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not really, Both Philosophical naturalism and theism are both philosophies about how the cosmos is, what it is.

Theism isn't a philosophy - it is merely a belief that god exists. It is no more a philosophy than atheism, a lack of belief that god exists. Sure there are theist philosophies, but they need to go way further than merely asserting that god exists - they need to posit some kind of philosophical position that flows from that existence in god.

All theism is is a statement of the existence of an entity, god, and therefore should be subject to the need for evidence for that claim as would be the case in any other situation where someone claims that something exists. If that claim relates to an objective 'true for everyone' god then objective evidence needs to be provided to support that claim. This is nothing like a philosophical claim which is an opinion not a claimed statement of fact.

[ProfessorDavey]

To equate theism with music is ridiculous. Don't give up your day job.

I didn't - I compared philosophies with music - both are matters of subjective opinion, in neither case can a preference for a particular type of music or a particular philosophy be proved to be correct in an objective sense.

And as I pointed out theism isn't a philosophy, nor is it like a philosophy if the claim is for the existence of god in a 'true for everyone' objective sense. There is a binary objective claim - either god exists or god does not exist and this should be subject to evidential verification in the same manner as any other claim that something objectively exists, e.g. black swans. And as Popper points out it may be impossible to prove that something does not exist - particularly if (unlike our dragon in the garage) it may exist in an almost infinite number of places, many of which are inaccessible. However the claims are easily falsifiable by bring forward a black swan or compelling evidence for god. In the latter case this has never happened despite people claiming god exists for thousands of years.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Theism isn't a philosophy - it is merely a belief that god exists.

That, as you know, isn't a proper definition of theism which is that God is responsible for the existence and governing of the universe...and that notion is of itself philosophical

It is no more a philosophy than atheism, a lack of belief that god exists.

If atheism opposes theism then it to is philosophical and a philosophy

Sure there are theist philosophies, but they need to go way further than merely asserting that god exists

They do and your definition of theism falls short.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't - I compared philosophies with music - both are matters of subjective opinion, in neither case can a preference for a particular type of music or a particular philosophy be proved to be correct in an objective sense.

Poor analogy, since philosophies are about the way things are in and for the universe. Music has nothing to say on that score.
Try comparing philosophy with brands of beans.

[ProfessorDavey]

That, as you know, isn't a proper definition of theism which is that God is responsible for the existence and governing of the universe...and that notion is of itself philosophical

Non-sense - theism is a belief that god exists, nothing more, nothing less. Theism per se is completely silent on the nature of that god, how that god may or may not interact with the universe, how that god may or may not dictate moral rules for people etc.

Sure there are plenty of theist philosophies, but that is a different matter - theism per se is a claim for the existence of a thing (god) and if this is a claim of objective, rather than subjective 'true for me, but not necessarily you' existence then it is subject to objective true/not true verification. This is entirely different from the claims of philosophy which are subjective opinions and cannot be proven objectively to be true/not true.

[ekim]

Not really, Both Philosophical naturalism and theism are both philosophies about how the cosmos is, what it is.

To avoid confusion it might be better to call it theology rather than theism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Non-sense - theism is a belief that god exists, nothing more, nothing less.

Boy, when you're wrong you really commit, don't you. Let's try to lead you out of this.
First of there's theism and deism. Theism states that there is a god who created the universe and maintains it. Deism says that God doesn't have anything to do with the universe it created. There we have several propositions already including a declaration that theism is not merely the belief that God exists.

Secondly look up the definition of theism.

Given the description of God in theism, creator and maintainer of the universe, That description is not a 'true for me only' declaration.

[Dicky Underpants]

Poor analogy, since philosophies are about the way things are in and for the universe. Music has nothing to say on that score.

Beethoven would have disagreed (not saying I agree, but I ain't B).
btw The existence of Mozart is one of the strongest non-philosophical 'arguments' in the theists' weaponry, so don't shoot yourself in the foot. The fact that M existed kept me in the theist camp when other experience and argument had led me out of it.

Err - about the soul, anybody?

[ProfessorDavey]

Boy, when you're wrong you really commit, don't you. Let's try to lead you out of this.
First of there's theism and deism. Theism states that there is a god who created the universe and maintains it. Deism says that God doesn't have anything to do with the universe it created. There we have several propositions already including a declaration that theism is not merely the belief that God exists.

Blimey Vlad - you really are digging yourself in deeper and deeper. Yes I am well aware of what deism is, but it appears that you do not understand what the strict definition of theism is - see below.

Secondly look up the definition of theism.

Yup, you mean like this one - I trust you consider the Cambridge Dictionary to be authoritative:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/theism

'belief in the existence of a god or gods'

Now I know that some definitions add some exemplars of the type of god, but that isn't part of the strict definition at all and is both superfluous and also confusing. So theism (see definition) is belief in the existence of god or gods. Deism is a sub-category of theism in which the god is non-interventionist. But a deism believes in the existence of that non interventionalist god and is therefore also theist.

And you can see the non-sense of trying to define theism in the context of a particular type of god alone when you look at the flip-side of theism, which is of course atheism. An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of god or gods, not someone who does not believe in a god who created the universe and maintains it, but believes in a god that does not maintain the world.

So image someone who fervently believes that there is a god, but that although that god created the world, having done so that god does not intervene in the world. That person isn't atheist, that person is clearly theist (as they believe in the existence of that god) but also deist.

Given the description of God in theism, creator and maintainer of the universe, That description is not a 'true for me only' declaration.

Show me exactly in the definition of theism I quote above the part that described the type of god ... of yes, there isn't one.

[Dicky Underpants]

.....
Secondly look up the definition of theism.

Given the description of God in theism, creator and maintainer of the universe, That description is not a 'true for me only' declaration.

These definitions are all so much white noise. They  might have a bit more relevance if the belief system involved were specified. Is Hinduism a theism? Is  gnosticism? They have very different views of God from the one you've described. No doubt you're suggesting theism is the superior concept (it's from the Greek, innit, and the uvver's only from the Latin)