On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> > A. There has never, ever, in the history of science, been such a thing > > proven as a spirit or soul. Feel free to believe in them if you like, but > > it's not something any legitimate biologist would say. > > We look around and notice there are living and nonliving things. What > is the cause of this observed difference? Let us call it 'soul'. If at > that point our 'legitimate biologist' want to ignore the formal cause > of the observed difference, and study the parts of the organism in > isolation, he is welcome to it. But unscientific? Why would you say > that? First, why would we call the difference between life and non-life soul, when there is an established scientific principle that life rises from organization? You completely throw out all of science to make that leap to begin with. Then you make an error in scientific thought to state that this is ignoring a "formal cause of the observed difference"...not at all! The entire discipline of origins science is based on that observed difference, and never once has a "soul" been offered in origins science as an explanation. Why, and why would I say that is unscientific? Because science IS observation, at its core. Science is based on empiricism. Even the speculative parts are based on creating an observable experiment, or establishing an axiomatic foundation which could be proven with an experiment of sufficient size or scope. A soul is an intangible construct made of nothing, measurable by nothing, observable by nothing. Therefore, a biologist would be speaking in an unscientific manner to attribute anything to a "soul", the same as attributing something to a "fairy", a "thetan", or an "invisible pink unicorn". > > B. Human mammal as embodied person? What are you talking about? > Well, you are a mammal, right? And you are a person, right? So are you > two entities -- personal entity using a body? Or one entity: an > embodied person? Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification. I suppose I would say that I am an "embodied person"...although science would simply call this being a living human being. > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
