Nature of the soul (split from: When did God put the soul in humans during evolution?)

[John Bauer]

On 3/1/2019 at 1:58 PM, Vexen said:

I was wondering when was the soul imparted into humans during the course of evolution?

Vexen:

I am brand new to this discussion forum. If there is a sub-forum designated for introductions, please feel free to point me in the right direction. (I briefly had a look around but found nothing obviously intended for that.) Nevertheless, I belong to the set of Religious People you were inquiring after. I am specifically a fundamentalist evangelical Christian. Since your question is one that I personally find interesting, I wanted to take a crack at it. 

Although the view that I will be presenting is my own religious perspective—by which I mean that it's not an official teaching of any particular Christian church, so far as I know—it is derived from and consistent with a biblical world-view and does at least attempt to provide your question with some kind of answer. And maybe we can then explore how the consequences fall out vis-a-vis a commitment to science and critical thinking.

Your question regarded the human soul, which you described as "the spiritual or immaterial" part of us that is supposedly "immortal," and you were wondering when that was "imparted to humans during the course of evolution." The very first thing I would have to be clear about is that I reject this Platonic or Cartesian anthropology as a widely believed yet utterly unbiblical tradition (never mind its complete lack of any scientific merit). Along with a growing number of Christian theologians, I believe that a soul is something I am, it is not something I possess. For example, when the Bible said that God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, the man "became a living soul" (Gen. 2:7, KJV). One should notice that it doesn't say he was given a soul; he became one. So, I am a soul, I don't have one.

That said, the next thing I'd have to be clear about is that the human soul isn't now immortal. Again, returning to the Bible, one should notice that immortality is a gift of salvation bestowed on believers at the end, when "the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality" (1 Cor. 15:52-53). If immortality is something that redeemed human souls are clothed with at the last trumpet, then it is clearly not something anyone now possesses. No, it is a gift which believers seek (Rom. 2:7), brought to light through the gospel (2 Tim. 1:10), and it is bestowed only on believers and only at the last trumpet. No human soul is presently immortal. All human souls are mortal—dead in their trespasses and sin (Eph. 2:1)—and must remain so unless they are redeemed in Christ.

Now, to your question: During the course of evolution, when did our species become souls? The Bible is fairly explicit that it first happened in the sacred garden east of Eden, with Adam who lived somewhere around eight thousand years ago (more or less around the same time as Ötzi the "Ice Man"). For the sake of the readers here, I will just skip over a huge amount of critical and relevant theological discussion and assert that the human "soul" is very specific language pertaining to the covenant relationship with God that we all have through either one of two federal heads, Adam or Christ. To simplify the intricate details horribly: (1) If the "soul" is covenant language, and (2) if God's covenant relationship with mankind is strictly and only through a federal head, and (3) if that relationship began with the federal headship of Adam, then (4) Adam and the rest of our species became souls roughly eight thousand years ago.

What about the countless others who lived and died prior to that? It would follow that they were not souls. They were humans, of course, the species Homo sapiens, but they were not souls. Again, the term "soul" belongs to the language of biblical theology, not biological science. God's covenant relationship with mankind began with a specific federal head (Adam) and at a specific moment in time (the garden). During the course of evolution, that is when it happened. On that timescale, it was basically yesterday. (As an aside: Adam is the default federal head of mankind. On this view, regardless of who you are, where you live, what you believe, etc., your covenant relationship with God is through or "in Adam" by default.)

Now of course other Religious People will have different answers to your question—in fact, so will other Christians. But they don't seem to be here answering you. And your question struck me as intelligent, sincere, and at least interesting to me and you, so I chose to take a crack at it and see where it goes. If other Religious People think there is a better answer to be given, let them provide their perspective. This one is mine, and it would be inappropriate to challenge my view here.

-- John M. Bauer

[zapatos]

8 minutes ago, John Bauer said:

What about the countless others who lived and died prior to that? It would follow that they were not souls. They were humans, of course, the species Homo sapiens, but they were not souls.

My Biblical knowledge is getting rusty, but doesn't the Bible imply that Adam was the first human man? Who were these countless other humans who lived prior to Adam?

[Phi for All]

17 minutes ago, John Bauer said:

That said, the next thing I'd have to be clear about is that the human soul isn't now immortal.

Wow, that's a new interpretation to me. I thought even the souls in hell were there for eternity.

Yet another reason to be a Humanist, imo. Religious folks love making stuff up, then believing in it with their whole heart.

[dimreepr]

19 minutes ago, John Bauer said:

Now of course other Religious People will have different answers to your question—in fact, so will other Christians. But they don't seem to be here answering you. And your question struck me as intelligent, sincere, and at least interesting to me and you, so I chose to take a crack at it and see where it goes. If other Religious People think there is a better answer to be given, let them provide their perspective. This one is mine, and it would be inappropriate to challenge my view here.

Indeed, much like your view, a science forum is inappropriate. 

[John Bauer]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, much like your view, a science forum is inappropriate. 

Except it was in the "Religion" sub-forum.

[Phi for All]

24 minutes ago, John Bauer said:

This one is mine, and it would be inappropriate to challenge my view here.

I'm guessing you don't spend much time on science discussion forums. 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, John Bauer said:

Except it was in the "Religion" sub-forum.

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, John Bauer said:

 Now, to your question: During the course of evolution, when did our species become souls? The Bible is fairly explicit that it first happened in the sacred garden east of Eden, with Adam who lived somewhere around eight thousand years ago (more or less around the same time as Ötzi the "Ice Man"). 

Is it your contention that Adam evolved from some other species? What about Eve?

[Carrock]

3 hours ago, John Bauer said:

The Bible is fairly explicit that it first happened in the sacred garden east of Eden, with Adam who lived somewhere around eight thousand years ago (more or less around the same time as Ötzi the "Ice Man").

Archbishop James Ussher used biblical research to calculate day 1 of creation as 23rd October 4004BC. Did he get it wrong?

[John Bauer]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

Is it your contention that Adam evolved from some other species? What about Eve?

Err, not exactly. It's my contention that he was born to parents and, like everyone else, they all belonged to the same human species which did evolve. So Adam had a belly button but, no, he didn't evolve. Individual persons don't evolve in a single life span; it is populations that evolve and over countless generations.
 

7 hours ago, Carrock said:

Archbishop James Ussher used biblical research to calculate day 1 of creation as 23rd October 4004BC. Did he get it wrong?

He is merely the most well-known person to calculate the age of creation using Adam and biblical genealogies. According to the Irish bishop, the world began at 6:00 p.m. on October 22, 4004 BC. But he was certainly not the first to reason this way. "The first person known to propose an actual date for the beginning of the world was the second-century bishop Theophilus of Antioch"—the city in Turkey, not Syria. "Working through the Old Testament, he added up the dates of the patriarchs (the male descendants of Adam) and those of the judges and kings (who ruled Israel later)" in order to show that the total number of years since "the creation of the world" was somewhere around 5,698 years, give or take a few weeks. He was then followed by others over the next fifteen hundred years, from the Venerable Bede to Martin Luther and others, including Ussher in the seventeenth century. See: Martin Gorst, Measuring Eternity: The Search for the Beginning of Time (New York: Broadway Books, 2001), 14–16.

And yes, obviously he got it wrong.

-- John Bauer

[zapatos]

57 minutes ago, John Bauer said:

Err, not exactly. It's my contention that he was born to parents and, like everyone else, they all belonged to the same human species which did evolve.

My Biblical knowledge is getting rusty, but doesn't the Bible imply that Adam was the first human man? Who were these countless other humans who lived prior to Adam?

 

[John Bauer]

21 minutes ago, zapatos said:

My Biblical knowledge is getting rusty, but doesn't the Bible imply that Adam was the first human man? Who were these countless other humans who lived prior to Adam?

The Bible certainly can imply that, yes, but only on sophomoric interpretations which exhibit specific unwarranted assumptions—taking it for granted that Genesis 1 recounts the dawn of natural history, for example, or taking it for granted that Genesis 2 is a synoptic account of Genesis 1, and so forth. It is only under these unwarranted assumptions that you will find such an implication.

However, those sort of assumptions just don't hold up under critical scrutiny for a number of reasons. Interpreting Genesis 1 literally—that is, in a way that genuinely allows the text to speak for itself in its original linguistic, cultural, and historical context—reveals that it's not about the dawn of natural history but redemptive history, that Genesis 2 is not synoptic but sequential, and so forth. The clues are in the very text itself, but they're easily missed when you approach it from an individualist modern cognitive context with a straight-forward reading of an English translation. This is what young-earth creationists do.

On a properly literal interpretation governed by the hermeneutic rules of biblical exegesis, the blatant error of Adam being the first human cannot be found. According to the Bible, redemptive history began with Adam less than 10,000 years ago. It has nothing to say about the dawn of natural history, which should be expected because it is a religious text. Jesus himself clearly suggested that the Bible is strictly about redemptive history (and explicitly said it was about him). 

Not only does the Bible NOT imply that Adam was the first human, it contains hints that he wasn't. For example, after Cain murdered Abel he was exiled to wander the land. But he was afraid: "Whoever finds me will kill me." Apparently there were others who might kill him? Also, notice that God doesn't correct him. Moreover, God marks him for others to see. Additionally, he went off to live in the land of Nod where he took a wife and had a family. So if there were countless other humans around at the same time, all of that makes sense.

We have no biblical reason to think Adam was the first human, and a wealth of scientific evidence demonstrating that he wasn't.

[zapatos]

19 minutes ago, John Bauer said:

We have no biblical reason to think Adam was the first human...

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.  1 CO 15:45

 

[John Bauer]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.  1 CO 15:45

We are dealing with a religious text that is saturated in theological language. It must be understood accordingly. What is meant by Adam being the first? It must have something to do with Christ being the last (or second, 1 Cor. 15:47). How many people lived after Adam and before Jesus? Tens of millions, surely. Yet it said Jesus was the "second" man. How many millions more lived after Jesus? Yet it said he was the last. In as much as others lived after the last, so others lived before the first—because this passage is not talking about human origins but about two specific federal representatives of humanity.

Again, this is covenant language explaining theological features of redemptive history. There are two—and only two—federal representatives of humanity in the covenant relationship between God and us. Adam was the first, in whom we are fallen, because nobody before him was a federal representative of humanity before God. And Christ was the second (and last), in whom we are redeemed, because nobody after him was a federal representative. That is the sense and meaning of this passage, which is made abundantly clear when the entire thing is read in context.

The fact that they're both referred to as "Adam" is another clue because that isn't either person's real name. Since Adam (ha-adam) is a Hebrew word, and that language did not exist when he did, we can be sure that wasn't his name. "Adam and Eve would not have called each other by these names because, whatever they spoke, it was not Hebrew," John Walton explained. "Hebrew does not exist as a language until somewhere in the middle of the second millennium BC." [1] The names Adam and Eve, as their meanings reveal, are archetypal names that have been assigned to this couple for the purpose of conveying their significance—a man named Human (federal head of mankind) with a spouse named Life (whose line would bear the Savior). These possess important covenant relevance and christological hints of the gospel, facts which transcend the mere characters to whom the names refer.

-- John Bauer

-----
Footnotes

[1] John H. Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2–3 and the Human Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015), 58–59.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, John Bauer said:

Err, not exactly. It's my contention that he was born to parents and, like everyone else, they all belonged to the same human species which did evolve. So Adam had a belly button but, no, he didn't evolve. Individual persons don't evolve in a single life span; it is populations that evolve and over countless generations.

Not from the dust of the ground, as described in the Bible? He was the first man, so were his parents human? And where is evolution described in the Bible? "God made X according to their kind" is usually taken to mean that they never changed.

 

[John Bauer]

On 5/11/2019 at 4:37 AM, swansont said:

Not from the dust of the ground, as described in the Bible? He was the first man, so were his parents human? And where is evolution described in the Bible? "God made X according to their kind" is usually taken to mean that they never changed.

Not from the dust of the ground, as described in the Bible?

Yes, the Bible says that God made Adam from the dust of the earth—but then it says that about every single one of us! Along with Adam, we are all made of dust (Ps. 103:14; Job 10:9; 1 Cor 15:47–48; etc.). Yet every single one of us was born to parents. Right? So we have good reason to think Adam was born to parents, and no reason to think otherwise. 

Adam being formed of dust was not something unique to him, as John Walton pointed out. It's something that pertains to all humans. So when Scripture describes Adam being formed from dust, it is not conveying how Adam was different from us but, rather, how he was the same as us. [1] (This is important with respect to his role as covenant head.)

Quote

Being formed from dust is a statement about our essence and identity, not our substance. In this, Adam is an archetype, not just a prototype. [...] One can be born of a woman yet still be formed from dust; all of us are. That means that even though Adam is formed from dust, he could still have been born of a woman. [2]

Again, this is theological language we are dealing with here. That Adam and all of us are formed of dust from the ground communicates a very specific theological meaning that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with God making sand castles in the shape of humans. [3]

He was the first man, so were his parents human? 

He was the first man with respect to federal headship in the covenant context of redemptive history, in the same way that Jesus was the second man (see my earlier response to zapatos). He was not first with respect to human origins in the physical context of natural history.

I think it's a safe bet that his parents were human.

And where is evolution described in the Bible? 

It's not. Evolution pertains to science and natural history, whereas the Bible is about theology and redemptive history.

 

-- John Bauer

 

Footnotes:

[1] John H. Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2–3 and the Human Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015), 75. 

[2] Ibid.

[3] Joshua M. Moritz, "Chosen From Among the Animals: The End of Human Uniqueness and the Election of the Image of God," PhD diss., Graduate Theological Union, 2012. ProQuest (AAT 3459528); See also: Denis R. Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? (Oxford: Monarch Books, 2008), 191–243.

Edited May 13, 2019 by John Bauer
Added clarifying quote from Walton.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, John Bauer said:

Not from the dust of the ground, as described in the Bible?

Yes, the Bible says that God made Adam from the dust of the earth—but then it says that about every single one of us! Along with Adam, we are all made of dust (Ps. 103:14; Job 10:9; 1 Cor 15:47–48; etc.). Yet every single one of us was born to parents. Right? So we have good reason to think Adam was born to parents, and no reason to think otherwise. 

No, you are moving the goalposts here. Genesis describes God making Adam from the dust of the ground. Those other verses do not say that, they merely say we are dust.

And the whole bit about Adam being the first man is good reason to question the existence of his parents. His dad was not a man?

4 hours ago, John Bauer said:

And where is evolution described in the Bible? 

It's not. Evolution pertains to science and natural history, whereas the Bible is about theology and redemptive history.

So all of this is off-topic.

[Gees]

John Bauer;

 

On 5/10/2019 at 10:09 AM, John Bauer said:

Vexen:

I am brand new to this discussion forum. If there is a sub-forum designated for introductions, please feel free to point me in the right direction. (I briefly had a look around but found nothing obviously intended for that.) Nevertheless, I belong to the set of Religious People you were inquiring after. I am specifically a fundamentalist evangelical Christian. Since your question is one that I personally find interesting, I wanted to take a crack at it. 

Although the view that I will be presenting is my own religious perspective—by which I mean that it's not an official teaching of any particular Christian church, so far as I know—it is derived from and consistent with a biblical world-view and does at least attempt to provide your question with some kind of answer. And maybe we can then explore how the consequences fall out vis-a-vis a commitment to science and critical thinking.

It was a pleasure to read your comments in this thread, as it is not often that I find someone who is so obviously intelligent, knowledgeable, and educated in these matters, and is also religious. (At least it is rare in this discussion forum.) I am sorry that I did not notice your thread earlier, as I would have loved to have a discussion with you on the matter of "souls". I am a philosopher by nature and habit, not by formal training, and have studied consciousness for most of my life. My studies have naturally caused me to also study Religion, but I should notify you that I, myself, am not religious. This does not stop me from appreciating and respecting Religion, and if anything, causes me to try to protect people's religious beliefs.

There is a good chance that you are no longer posting in this forum, and I can't say that I would blame you after the less than adequate responses you received. You were looking for intelligent conversation and did not get it. Believe it or not, many of the members here are knowledgeable and intelligent; it is only when posting in the Religion forum that they seem to "eat a plate full of stupid" before posting. If you are reading this, and are still interested in conversation, let me know via the PM system -- send me a private message -- of where we might be able to have a real discussion on the matter of souls. Maybe another forum?

Gee

[Moontanman]

3 hours ago, Gees said:

John Bauer;

 

It was a pleasure to read your comments in this thread, as it is not often that I find someone who is so obviously intelligent, knowledgeable, and educated in these matters, and is also religious. (At least it is rare in this discussion forum.) I am sorry that I did not notice your thread earlier, as I would have loved to have a discussion with you on the matter of "souls". I am a philosopher by nature and habit, not by formal training, and have studied consciousness for most of my life. My studies have naturally caused me to also study Religion, but I should notify you that I, myself, am not religious. This does not stop me from appreciating and respecting Religion, and if anything, causes me to try to protect people's religious beliefs.

There is a good chance that you are no longer posting in this forum, and I can't say that I would blame you after the less than adequate responses you received. You were looking for intelligent conversation and did not get it. Believe it or not, many of the members here are knowledgeable and intelligent; it is only when posting in the Religion forum that they seem to "eat a plate full of stupid" before posting. If you are reading this, and are still interested in conversation, let me know via the PM system -- send me a private message -- of where we might be able to have a real discussion on the matter of souls. Maybe another forum?

Gee

Really Gees, I eat a plate of stupid before I post on religion? That is really insulting dude, couple that with John bending over so far to defend the undefendable he is showing his ignorance big time and trying to tell us it's only biker shorts and not his panties makes it doubly insulting. His completely unsupported views on religion which is in it's self unsupported shouldn't even be on here. 

[dimreepr]

33 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Really Gees, I eat a plate of stupid before I post on religion? That is really insulting dude, couple that with John bending over so far to defend the undefendable

I agree Gees is a back door insultist, but I can't agree religion is undefendable, however misguided John's approach; if one can defend sports one can defend religion.

Not that anyone ate a plate of stupid in this thread, Gees... where do you get off...

Sport elevates the practitioners (literally and metaphorically) and makes the fans happy.

Edited July 29, 2019 by dimreepr

[Gees]

Moontanman;

 

13 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Really Gees, I eat a plate of stupid before I post on religion?

Please note that I stated "many" members, not all members. You did not post in this thread prior to my comments, and as far as I know, you have never communicated with John Bauer, so it is a little presumptuous to assume that I was talking about you.

 

Quote

That is really insulting dude, couple that with John bending over so far to defend the undefendable he is showing his ignorance big time and trying to tell us it's only biker shorts and not his panties makes it doubly insulting. His completely unsupported views on religion which is in it's self unsupported shouldn't even be on here. 

So you are saying that the above comments are examples of your cool logic? your deep analysis? your critical thinking?

What should I say to that? What can I say to that? I rest my case?

Gee

 

dimreepr;

 

13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Not that anyone ate a plate of stupid in this thread, Gees... where do you get off...

It is really very simple; I got tired of apologetics. 

When I first joined Science forums, I had a real respect for Science, you could even say that I was in awe of much of Science. A few years in this forum has taught me that there are two Sciences -- the real one that I still respect -- and the other wannabe one that I see displayed in the Philosophy and Religion forums. There is no Science in the comments in this thread, just a lot of arrogance, ignorance, and bias. It is obvious as a nose on a face that the members posting here have no real education as regards Religion, and learned their religious ideas at their mother's knee or in their local churches. They have a very layman's understanding and did not even know what John Bauer was talking about.

I am simply tired of apologizing for wannabe scientists.

Gee

 

[Strange]

19 hours ago, Gees said:

there are two Sciences -- the real one that I still respect -- and the other wannabe one that I see displayed in the Philosophy and Religion forums. There is no Science in the comments in this thread

Philosophy and religion are not philosophy science. I would expect a "philosopher" to know that.

19 hours ago, Gees said:

I am simply tired of apologizing for wannabe scientists.

And I am tired of wannabe "philosophers".

 

19 hours ago, Gees said:

It is obvious as a nose on a face that the members posting here have no real education as regards Religion, and learned their religious ideas at their mother's knee or in their local churches.

Pretty much everything I know about religion has come from educational sources, as I was not brought up with much exposure to religion.

Edited July 30, 2019 by Strange
oops

[Prometheus]

9 hours ago, Gees said:

It is obvious as a nose on a face that the members posting here have no real education as regards Religion, and learned their religious ideas at their mother's knee or in their local churches. They have a very layman's understanding and did not even know what John Bauer was talking about.

What's wrong with that?

Compassion is a huge part of many religions: the academic study of compassion might be useful - but it's not the same as the practice of compassion. When was the soul put into humans? Who cares - the answer won't make you a better human being, which is what religious teaching should be trying to help with. 

All this pretence at academia by 'religious' people seems to belie an insecurity and need for validation with science. Spiritual practices should stand on their own merits, anything that needs propping up with pseudo-pseudoscience should be left to fall. 

And honestly Gees, though there are some aloof people on this site,  likely including myself, you are among the worst for it. Look at yourself before casting stones.

 

[Gees]

Strange;

 

7 hours ago, Strange said:

Philosophy and religion are not philosophy. I would expect a "philosopher" to know that.

Philosophy is not Philosophy? What?

Religion is not in the Philosophy section? What?

 

Quote

And I am tired of wannabe "philosophers".

So stop supporting them.

 

Quote

Pretty much everything I know about religion has come from educational sources, as I was not brought up with much exposure to religion.

A few points to consider:

1) You did not post in this thread prior to my comments, so I was not referencing your posts.

2) Pretty much everything you know comes from "educational sources", because that is what you trust. That is why you are a "science guy" because you only trust the "known" as being valid. Philosophy deals with the as yet "unknown", or not yet validated.

3) You recently asked me to prove a negative and even called it a "reasonable" request. Logic is not your forte, so you don't trust it, which is why you are not a philosopher. Philosophy uses logic, analysis, and critical thinking to put parameters around the unknown.

4) I have often wished that I could have a discussion with you, Prometheus, and even dimreepr, as you all have knowledge about Religion that I would like to learn about and discuss. But I can't get past the downvoting, bias, and ignorance that permeates this forum, so I gave up. There are other forums and other people, who have studied Religion.

Gee

 

Prometheus;

 

6 hours ago, Prometheus said:

What's wrong with that?

What is wrong with laymen vehemently arguing a point with a person educated in the subject matter? Let's say that I took my layman's understanding of Physics to the Physics forum (like that would ever happen), and then I told Swansont that he had no idea of what he was talking about. What kind of fool would I look like? Well, that is the kind of fool some members in this thread looked like.

 

Quote

Compassion is a huge part of many religions: the academic study of compassion might be useful - but it's not the same as the practice of compassion. When was the soul put into humans? Who cares - the answer won't make you a better human being, which is what religious teaching should be trying to help with. 

Compassion is not the subject of this thread, and since you admittedly don't care (underlined by me) what the subject is, you are off-topic. Your inability to discipline your mind to the subject at hand is one of the reasons why I do not relish discussion with you.

 

Quote

All this pretence at academia by 'religious' people seems to belie an insecurity and need for validation with science. Spiritual practices should stand on their own merits, anything that needs propping up with pseudo-pseudoscience should be left to fall. 

Your opinion is noted and worthless. It is based on the premise that "academia" belongs solely to Science. Nonsense.

 

Quote

And honestly Gees, though there are some aloof people on this site,  likely including myself, you are among the worst for it. Look at yourself before casting stones.

I just want to study consciousness. It is an elusive subject that has defied understanding by some of the greatest minds we have ever known. Early on I learned that a person has to throw out their biases, discipline their thoughts, and reexamine their "truths" in order to learn anything about this subject.

I wanted to talk to Quiet in the NDE thread, as he made some interesting and intelligent comments, but I was loath to draw him into a discussion in a thread that quickly turned into a "witch hunt". I wanted to talk to John Bauer as he also made some interesting and intelligent comments, but I did not get to him before he left the forum.

My greatest fear is that I will become as sloppy in my thinking as others have become. That is why I have been looking at other forums, because there is no one here who can help me.

Gee

 

[Strange]

27 minutes ago, Gees said:

Philosophy is not Philosophy? What?

Thanks for spotting the error. Fixed now.

27 minutes ago, Gees said:

So stop supporting them.

I'll continue to point out your nonsense when I spot it (I do not usually read your posts as they rarely have any meaningful content).

29 minutes ago, Gees said:

Philosophy deals with the as yet "unknown", or not yet validated.

Christ on a bike. For someone who is a "philosopher" you do post complete bollocks about philosophy.

30 minutes ago, Gees said:

Logic is not your forte, so you don't trust it

I have spent decades relying on the correct application of formal logic.

31 minutes ago, Gees said:

That is why I have been looking at other forums, because there is no one here who can help me.

Well, there's some good news there, perhaps.