Philosophy Now Forum

Londoner wrote:

... humans can describe their reasons and motives. Animals cannot.

If I am describing my reasons and motives, then I am simply confirming that this is the way I want to act, which is a consequence of who I am. If I wanted to show that I was not motivated by my own instinct, then I would have to refer to something outside myself. But in the case of morality we have no agreed external reference point. Any reference points individuals adopt (religions etc) are also self-selected. If I become a Nazi, or a Christian, then that was because the doctrines appeal to me.

You're a Determinist, then. You think people believe things because of programming ("who I am"), "appeal" or instinct (like the animals?) of some kind, not because of reason or choice.

If that's true, then there's no such thing as philosophy. There's only the inevitable grinding of instinctive bias, with no change or resolution possible.

But then, why are you here? What's your attraction to philosophy, if your ideology is all predetermined by your nature anyway?

...any interpretation will be their own, arising from who they are as individuals. So even within a religion there can be no explanation that we can clearly separate from our own mental state.

This is an example of a half-truth being mistaken for the whole. For within any act of interpretation, there are constraining factors that you've overlooked. The Muslims will be haggling over the Koran (or the Hadiths, perhaps). And while their readings may have different aspects, there are some "interpretations" which will fall outside the range of the plausible interpretation of the text. The text imposes a limited range to these meanings. To miss this point would be to lapse into an unthinking and irrational relativism.

So if the Koran says, "Kill the enemies of God," it might be reasonable for them to haggle over who is a true "enemy." But it won't be reasonable for one of them to say that that text means, "Hug infidels," or "Pass the salt, please." They will have to stay within the range of the text, or their "interpretations" are simply not rationally defendable.

Our mental state is involved in interpretation, true; but it does not determine it. When it does, we've become irrational. And again, that's just not the sort of case with which philosophy has any interest.

That would not work because everybody else could say the same thing.

They could say it. But their saying of it won't make it true if it's not.

It may be a fact that you have those opinions, that for you they may be unquestionable beliefs, but that is not a guarantee of truth, since we are aware that humans can be mistaken in their ideas, if only because there exists a plurality of views. And if we know that about others, then we know it about ourselves.

Human beings can be mistaken about 2+2. Many have been. And there is not just a plurality of answers, but an infinite number of them. But all but one are simply wrong.

That's how facts work. There's a right answer about them. The range of interpretations people happen to offer simply will not alter the facts.

Perhaps you can demonstrate conclusively that you know God's mind!

Or, to put it another way, God needs to speak, and we need to listen.

Otherwise, I accept it is too much to ask for a demonstration beyond the possibility of questioning, neither atheist or theist or anyone can else can provide that. But by the same token, since we cannot provide it for our own view, we cannot condemn others for coming to different conclusions. In other words, if we condemn others as 'evil' we are applying a certainty that we do not own.

Another mistake. If your argument were true, then essentially you're arguing, "100% certainty is impossible, therefore 99% certainty is no good, 70% certainty isn't better than 50% certainty, and nobody knows anything for sure."

That's a heck of a slippery-slope fallacy.

We may not have certainty in anything -- not even in science, actually -- but what science does show is that high probability is a heck of a lot better than low or no probability. I suggest we should apply that to the present case, rather than despairing because we can't achieve perfection.

In other words, there is a sharp philosophical difference between being a theist and believing one is justified in 'casting the first stone', let alone burning unbelievers

.

Were you now thinking of first-century Jews or Muslims? Because Christians don't do either, of course. That's kinda the point of the parable, actually.

But I'm not quite clear here: what is this "philosophical difference" of which you speak?

uwot wrote: The point I was making is that Mr Can is making the same mistake he attributes to "Atheists", in that he is claiming we know that something doesn't, or didn't exist. Given that you admit to being selective as to who and what you read on this forum, I suppose it is conceivable that you have missed myself or others pointing out that atheism is not the belief that god doesn't exist, it is rather the absence of a belief in the existence of a god. Most atheists will openly concede that they don't know that god doesn't exist, because there is no possible evidence that could prove it. By the same token, there is no possible evidence that "no ancient Atheist society existed."

If you will note, I don't believe that I have supported that assertion, I have heard many atheists assert that atheism is a lack of belief rather than a positive belief in a negative. BTW, I'm not an atheist so I can't say what they believe or don't believe, I can only repeat what I have heard those who claim to be atheists, say that they believe or don't believe.

Yes, I am a bit selective in who's posts I read and there are some that I do not read at all, your's I read occasionally. There are some forums that I do not look at and there are some threads, in the forums that I do look at, that I do not look at. Usually I don't follow threads where I have little or nothing to add, and only rarely will I read a thread just to gain knowledge.

attofishpi wrote:WHY DONT YOU ALL JUST PACK IT IN - U KNOW? GIVE UP!!
WHAT A BORING THREAD.

Bye.

Immanuel Can wrote:
You're a Determinist, then. You think people believe things because of programming ("who I am"), "appeal" or instinct (like the animals?) of some kind, not because of reason or choice.

If that's true, then there's no such thing as philosophy. There's only the inevitable grinding of instinctive bias, with no change or resolution possible.

It is about the nature of moral (and religious claims). When we make such claims we are either talking about ourselves ('I feel this way') or about an external fact ('this is the case for everyone, not just for me'). If it is the former, then that may or may not go with a determinist philosophy, or a solipsistic one, or something else.

This is an example of a half-truth being mistaken for the whole. For within any act of interpretation, there are constraining factors that you've overlooked. The Muslims will be haggling over the Koran (or the Hadiths, perhaps). And while their readings may have different aspects, there are some "interpretations" which will fall outside the range of the plausible interpretation of the text. The text imposes a limited range to these meanings. To miss this point would be to lapse into an unthinking and irrational relativism.

So if the Koran says, "Kill the enemies of God," it might be reasonable for them to haggle over who is a true "enemy." But it won't be reasonable for one of them to say that that text means, "Hug infidels," or "Pass the salt, please." They will have to stay within the range of the text, or their "interpretations" are simply not rationally defendable.

Certainly, but why have they chosen that text, as opposed to a different one, or no text at all?

Again, the answer is either that the text appeals to them personally, or because there is some compelling fact which ought to show to everyone that the Koran is the word of God. If it is the second, we would ask what this fact is.

Human beings can be mistaken about 2+2. Many have been. And there is not just a plurality of answers, but an infinite number of them. But all but one are simply wrong.

That's how facts work. There's a right answer about them. The range of interpretations people happen to offer simply will not alter the facts.

And how do you know which is the fact? I can answer with regard to maths. With empirical facts I can also answer, but not with absolute certainty. But I remain unclear about what fact you refer to, or even what kind of fact it is, and why you believe you can be sure of it (assuming you do).

Another mistake. If your argument were true, then essentially you're arguing, "100% certainty is impossible, therefore 99% certainty is no good, 70% certainty isn't better than 50% certainty, and nobody knows anything for sure."

I have made no such argument. I am not saying I know that what other people think is wrong/evil. I am quite happy to accept that I cannot be certain about such things, or that certainty is impossible.

I am unclear about whether you claim absolute certainty, 99% certainty, or that nobody knows anything for sure. You refer to a 'fact', which suggests that something is true, that there is a fact to know. But do you know it? If so, what is it and how do you know it?

In other words, there is a sharp philosophical difference between being a theist and believing one is justified in 'casting the first stone', let alone burning unbelievers

Were you now thinking of first-century Jews or Muslims? Because Christians don't do either, of course. That's kinda the point of the parable, actually.

But I'm not quite clear here: what is this "philosophical difference" of which you speak?

I don't think parables are that literal. I would have thought describing others as 'evil' was 'casting the first stone'. 'Judge not, lest you be judged'.

The philosophical difference is the one I have described above. One can take the view that science etc. does not answer all the questions we have, for example 'how should I live my life?' I think these are real questions and we are obliged to attempt an answer. And since such answers must come from outside science etc., I do not see that a reply that involves religion is inferior to one that tries to do without it.

However, if we criticise another persons reply as 'wrong', then we must be applying some sort of objective criteria. It asserts such criteria exist and the belief that we have some sort of evidence. In which case, yet again we must ask, evidence of what? Drawn from where?

uwot wrote:I'm on a mission from god.

So don't read it.

Im Kunt admitted on another thread that he's only here to prosolytise ''because I'm such a good person'', and proselytising has absolutely nothing to do with philosophy, so I don't know why you keep feeding the troll.

Londoner wrote:It is about the nature of moral (and religious claims). When we make such claims we are either talking about ourselves ('I feel this way') or about an external fact ('this is the case for everyone, not just for me'). If it is the former, then that may or may not go with a determinist philosophy, or a solipsistic one, or something else.

Ah. Well, I'm thinking it's the latter.

Certainly, but why have they chosen that text, as opposed to a different one, or no text at all?

Well, because, say, it's the Koran: and by definition, as Muslim regards the Koran as the most sacred writing. Not at all because...

Again, the answer is either that the text appeals to them personally, or because there is some compelling fact which ought to show to everyone that the Koran is the word of God. If it is the second, we would ask what this fact is.

In practice, the "compelling fact" may be no more that, "I was raised Muslim and was told I ought to revere that particular book."

Human beings can be mistaken about 2+2. Many have been. And there is not just a plurality of answers, but an infinite number of them. But all but one are simply wrong.

That's how facts work. There's a right answer about them. The range of interpretations people happen to offer simply will not alter the facts.

And how do you know which is the fact? I can answer with regard to maths. With empirical facts I can also answer, but not with absolute certainty. But I remain unclear about what fact you refer to, or even what kind of fact it is, and why you believe you can be sure of it (assuming you do).

You're confusing ontology with epistemology. Ontology addresses the question, "What is real," and epistemology asks, "How much do we know about what is real?"

Ontology is fixed. What is, simply is. But epistemology is negotiable: I may know less or more about what is. My epistemology will need continual correction, but reality will not change as it is.

I am unclear about whether you claim absolute certainty, 99% certainty, or that nobody knows anything for sure. You refer to a 'fact', which suggests that something is true, that there is a fact to know. But do you know it? If so, what is it and how do you know it?

I trust the aforegoing description of ontology and epistemology solves that question.

I don't think parables are that literal. I would have thought describing others as 'evil' was 'casting the first stone'. 'Judge not, lest you be judged'.

Ah, yes...the only passage in the Bible that every Atheist knows. They are never aware that there are twice as many injunctions to "judge" things as there are "not to judge" things. The difference exists in each context with regard to WHAT is being judged/not judged.

For example, we are told, "If we judged ourselves, we would not be judged by God." That is as good a recommendation TO judge as you'll ever find.

So judging isn't bad...at least, not in all, or even most cases. But it is sometimes.

As for casting literal stones, the ancient Hebrews did, and the modern conservative Muslims do.

The philosophical difference is the one I have described above. One can take the view that science etc. does not answer all the questions we have, for example 'how should I live my life?' I think these are real questions and we are obliged to attempt an answer. And since such answers must come from outside science etc., I do not see that a reply that involves religion is inferior to one that tries to do without it.

Yep, I agree.

However, if we criticise another persons reply as 'wrong', then we must be applying some sort of objective criteria. It asserts such criteria exist and the belief that we have some sort of evidence. In which case, yet again we must ask, evidence of what? Drawn from where?

Would it be "wrong" to criticize without a standard?

Just kidding. You see the point, though: even to think a thing like criticizing could be wrong, we are accidentally invoking moral criteria. And you're right: we must get them from somewhere.

So from where do you draw yours, in posing the dilemma to us?

thedoc wrote:

attofishpi wrote:WHY DONT YOU ALL JUST PACK IT IN - U KNOW? GIVE UP!!
WHAT A BORING THREAD.

Bye.

I do give credit where it's due, and I have to say you have written some of the best comments on this thread. I don't know how you can side with a bombastic buffoon like IC. Nothing he's posted remotely resembles anything that you've said. You only side with him because you perceive him to share your beliefs.

Dontaskme wrote:

seeds wrote:
The sun is just as oblivious to the ultimate truth of its own creation and existence as we are of ours.

Furthermore (and assuming that she too is not a “horrid old bat” like the one you quoted ), would you refer to your mom as an “it”?

If not, then don’t you think that “God” (another problematic word) deserves to be viewed as something more than just an “it”?
_______

Every thing is IT

No human knows what IT is ..only that IT is....label IT whatever, and that's only ever IT what ever IT is...naming IT SELF what it isn't?

When the rain or sunshine is observed - it's often noted as ...IT's raining, or IT's sunny....it's not said... God's raining or God's sunning... is it?

Try talking to a friend over the phone (within earshot of your spouse or mom) as you reveal that you and “it” made love last night, or how “it” invited you over for a feast of homemade cooking, and see how that works out for you.
_______

Greta wrote: In summary, ascribing a gender is effectively ascribing a limitation.

Let’s try to clear up this gender issue once and for all.

The living consciousness (mind, soul, or whatever we want to call it) awakens into existence as a result of a unique arrangement of body and brain cells.

However, the consciousness itself (again, the mind) is absolutely genderless.

This can be understood by realizing that with a few edits in the DNA molecule within the fertilized ovum, any one of us could have emerged from our mother’s womb with bodies having testicles rather than ovaries, or ovaries rather than testicles.

In which case, it is just a matter of sheer chance that I haven’t spent a great portion of my life dealing with menstrual cramps and feminine hygiene products, or you, Greta, don’t have “fond” memories of lying on the sidewalk, writhing in agony, after your groin made abrupt contact with the crossbar of your bicycle.

Clearly (to me, anyway), the completely genderless mind simply adapts to our earthly situation – bodily and, especially, socially.

I know it’s not very comforting, but most human males are just too dense to realize that it could just as easily be them on the receiving end of their pig-headed ignorance and oppression toward females (think Islam) had the DNA dice rolled differently.

I realize and respect the fact that you (and others) are not amenable to the following suggestions...

...however, the point is that if it is indeed a “possibility” (as is implied in most of our religions) that the mind (soul/consciousness) somehow survives the death of these gender assigning bodies, then it is at that moment when our genderlessness will be revealed to us.

And that is precisely how one must view God’s genderlessness.

Think of it as being a “genderless wholeness of being” that we all acquire in the transcendent context of our ultimate and eternal form.

(See the following linked post to get a better idea of where I am coming from -- viewtopic.php?f=11&t=19613&start=75#p275779)
_______

seeds wrote:
...however, the point is that if it is indeed a “possibility” (as is implied in most of our religions) that the mind (soul/consciousness) somehow survives the death of these gender assigning bodies, then it is at that moment when our genderlessness will be revealed to us.

And that is precisely how one must view God’s genderlessness.

Think of it as being a “genderless wholeness of being” that we all acquire in the transcendent context of our ultimate and eternal form.

(See the following linked post to get a better idea of where I am coming from -- viewtopic.php?f=11&t=19613&start=75#p275779)
_______

...or put another way, once dead it makes no difference to the deceased whether he/she was one or the other.

The word "God" is without gender to begin with. Referring to god by pronoun resolves to an either/or situation if you don't wish to use the overriding and ubiquitous "it" as its denotation. God 'incurs' gender as conditioned by grammar simply because almost all of flora and fauna on this planet reflects this fact. Only when monotheism took hold did this become a problem limited to only one god without consort and no goddesses. It therefore makes sense, monotheism being patriarchal, to refer to god as Him, His, etc.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Well, because, say, it's the Koran: and by definition, as Muslim regards the Koran as the most sacred writing. Not at all because...

In practice, the "compelling fact" may be no more that, "I was raised Muslim and was told I ought to revere that particular book."

In either case, that would circular. I regard the Koran as sacred because I think it is sacred. I revere the Koran because I revere the Koran. In neither case is any argument being presented why others should feel the same way. Is that your position? I do not get that impression.

You're confusing ontology with epistemology. Ontology addresses the question, "What is real," and epistemology asks, "How much do we know about what is real?"

Ontology is fixed. What is, simply is. But epistemology is negotiable: I may know less or more about what is. My epistemology will need continual correction, but reality will not change as it is.

I do not think your explanation of ontology and epistemology is right, nor do I see why it is relevant. You seem to be making a claim to know something, but I am not clear what, or how you know. I am asking for clarity about what you think; only you can tell me!

Me: I am unclear about whether you claim absolute certainty, 99% certainty, or that nobody knows anything for sure. You refer to a 'fact', which suggests that something is true, that there is a fact to know. But do you know it? If so, what is it and how do you know it?

I trust the aforegoing description of ontology and epistemology solves that question.

No, it doesn't. I still cannot tell what fact you are asserting, with what degree of certainty and from where that degree of certainty arises.

It isn't supposed to be a trick question. Some might answer that they are convinced that scripture is reliable, using the sort of arguments we might use if we are making a historical claim. Others might say it is derived from one of the classical proofs of God. Others might be convinced by intelligent design. Or from some personal revelation. And an atheist might deny that any of these reasons are sufficient and therefore we should be an atheist by default, or an agnostic. And each might adopt their position but with varying degrees of certainty. And so on.

You seem reluctant to answer. That would be fine except...

Just kidding. You see the point, though: even to think a thing like criticizing could be wrong, we are accidentally invoking moral criteria. And you're right: we must get them from somewhere.

When we criticise others, then what we believe ourselves, and why, is not longer private. This is because the next question is 'Why do you think they are wrong?' At which point we must present some reason. I have made the same point about atheism, it is not neutral, it is not just personal 'disbelief'. If we say that people are wrong to believe in God, then we must be asserting a criteria that distinguishes what people should, and shouldn't believe.

But the same applies to believers. When we talk about good and evil and God and atheism are we just talking about our own mental states, with no claim to truth? The equivalent of saying 'I like chocolate!' Because if we are claiming more than that, we have to put our cards on the table.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Im Kunt admitted on another thread that he's only here to prosolytise ''because I'm such a good person'', and proselytising has absolutely nothing to do with philosophy, so I don't know why you keep feeding the troll.

Well a friend over in language and psychology thought Mr Can would make an interesting case study; some of the posts were hers. But now it's just for a bet.

seeds wrote: ...however, the point is that if it is indeed a “possibility” (as is implied in most of our religions) that the mind (soul/consciousness) somehow survives the death of these gender assigning bodies, then it is at that moment when our genderlessness will be revealed to us.

I don't think we have to wait that long.

Just getting older changes the body. Although young people think they are sane and normal, really they are being controlled by various hormones that make then do ridiculous things and prevent them from thinking straight. As their effect fades, gradually sanity will return.

Long before we understood about hormones, everyone knew that sex was a form of madness, something caused by an irresponsible god or demon to create chaos. (See also alcohol.)

Certainly old women are still different from old men, but it is a different-difference to that between young women and young men. Because it can change, this shows that sex (or gender as we seem obliged to call it) is not some fundamental fact, so the idea that God would be neither man nor woman seems obvious - at least to anyone over a certain age.

Londoner wrote:Is that your position? I do not get that impression.

No, you're right. I was just talking about why some people believe -- saying that there are more reasons than we had listed earlier -- not that those reasons are any good. I think it's pretty clear that the kind of believe I was describing is unwarranted, and in fact, comes pretty close to illustrating what it means to be a victim of propaganda.

I certainly wasn't recommending it.

But there is a variety of reasons for belief...and disbelief. Some people claim to be disbelievers because of evidence, some only because of preference. Many say they disbelieve because of something that happened to them. Freud said some are acting out hatred toward their fathers. Some are raised in Atheist homes, and just buy in...and so on.

There's nothing to guarantee us that just because a person believes or disbelieves in God they have to be doing it on the basis of reasons and evidence -- in both cases, belief and disbelief, they can be doing it for bad reasons or no reason at all as well.

I do not think your explanation of ontology and epistemology is right, nor do I see why it is relevant.

It's this: our confusion about what exists does not change what exists. I may take a drug and think I can fly by jumping off my roof...that will not stop me from hitting the ground with a splat, no matter how fervent that belief is. Similarly, belief or disbelief in God will not do one thing to make God exist if He does not -- or to remove Him from the universe if He does.

So we'd best ask "What is true?" not just "How many different ideological and religious views are 'out there'?"

Me: I am unclear about whether you claim absolute certainty, 99% certainty, or that nobody knows anything for sure. You refer to a 'fact', which suggests that something is true, that there is a fact to know. But do you know it? If so, what is it and how do you know it?

Probabilistically. That's the way human beings know everything empirical. We do, in fact, have no absolute certainty, except in maths and logic, because they are formal, closed systems. The universe is not formal and self-defined, so we can't know truth in the way we do in maths and logic.

I trust the aforegoing description of ontology and epistemology solves that question.

No, it doesn't. I still cannot tell what fact you are asserting, with what degree of certainty and from where that degree of certainty arises.[/quote]

Level of certainty differs for different questions. I have 50% certainty it will rain today. That's enough for that: I'll take my brolly. But before I step into a lift, I want 99.99999% certainty it will not plunge to the ground and kill me. I can't be 100% certain, because occasionally these things happen. But I like my odds, and they're good enough to get me into the lift.

It isn't supposed to be a trick question. Some might answer that they are convinced that scripture is reliable, using the sort of arguments we might use if we are making a historical claim. Others might say it is derived from one of the classical proofs of God. Others might be convinced by intelligent design. Or from some personal revelation. And an atheist might deny that any of these reasons are sufficient and therefore we should be an atheist by default, or an agnostic. And each might adopt their position but with varying degrees of certainty. And so on.

You seem reluctant to answer. That would be fine except...

Not at all...I'm just not quite sure what you're asking...I can't find the question mark in that last paragraph. Maybe you could add one?

When we criticise others, then what we believe ourselves, and why, is not longer private. This is because the next question is 'Why do you think they are wrong?' At which point we must present some reason. I have made the same point about atheism, it is not neutral, it is not just personal 'disbelief'. If we say that people are wrong to believe in God, then we must be asserting a criteria that distinguishes what people should, and shouldn't believe.

Yes, quite true. But the Atheism you're describing is different from uwot's. He claims he neither has nor needs evidence. I would tend to agree, that if Atheism is any kind of serious claim one makes on other people's beliefs, it ought to have evidence. He thinks not.

But the same applies to believers. When we talk about good and evil and God and atheism are we just talking about our own mental states, with no claim to truth? The equivalent of saying 'I like chocolate!' Because if we are claiming more than that, we have to put our cards on the table.

I agree.

Maybe there was a question you wanted to ask, but which we missed? If so, I'm good to go if you want to ask it.

Immanuel Can wrote: There's nothing to guarantee us that just because a person believes or disbelieves in God they have to be doing it on the basis of reasons and evidence -- in both cases, belief and disbelief, they can be doing it for bad reasons or no reason at all as well.

Far from there being any guarantee that they are doing so on the basis of reason or evidence, there is no indication that those things are involved at all.

Not unless they provide further details of why they think what they do.

It's this: our confusion about what exists does not change what exists. I may take a drug and think I can fly by jumping off my roof...that will not stop me from hitting the ground with a splat, no matter how fervent that belief is. Similarly, belief or disbelief in God will not do one thing to make God exist if He does not -- or to remove Him from the universe if He does.

So we'd best ask "What is true?" not just "How many different ideological and religious views are 'out there'?"

Unless and until we can explain what we understand by 'God', then the question of whether he exists or not does not arise. One might equally ask 'Does x exist?' while refusing to explain what 'x' stands for. This is why I keep asking what you understand by 'God'.

That there is more than one ideological view indicates that there is no general agreement, but you are free to assert your own view.

Me: I am unclear about whether you claim absolute certainty, 99% certainty, or that nobody knows anything for sure. You refer to a 'fact', which suggests that something is true, that there is a fact to know. But do you know it? If so, what is it and how do you know it?

Probabilistically. That's the way human beings know everything empirical. We do, in fact, have no absolute certainty, except in maths and logic, because they are formal, closed systems. The universe is not formal and self-defined, so we can't know truth in the way we do in maths and logic.

So is your belief that God exists and his nature is derived from empirical observation(s), and has the same degree of uncertainty as all empirical evidence? Can you describe these observations?

Level of certainty differs for different questions. I have 50% certainty it will rain today. That's enough for that: I'll take my brolly. But before I step into a lift, I want 99.99999% certainty it will not plunge to the ground and kill me. I can't be 100% certain, because occasionally these things happen. But I like my odds, and they're good enough to get me into the lift.

And is that the case with your belief in God? Is it a form of Pascal's Wager?

Me: It isn't supposed to be a trick question. Some might answer that they are convinced that scripture is reliable, using the sort of arguments we might use if we are making a historical claim. Others might say it is derived from one of the classical proofs of God. Others might be convinced by intelligent design. Or from some personal revelation. And an atheist might deny that any of these reasons are sufficient and therefore we should be an atheist by default, or an agnostic. And each might adopt their position but with varying degrees of certainty. And so on.

Not at all...I'm just not quite sure what you're asking...I can't find the question mark in that last paragraph. Maybe you could add one?

It is the same old question. What is the reason you believe in God? (assuming you do).

I don't want to conduct a cross-examination here. If you can't or won't explain, just say. As I have explained, I am only interested in why you think you are right in your views, because you had posted that others were wrong in theirs. But if you had no intention of claiming you had that sort of certainty, then I'm happy to leave it.