All the comments made have made interesting reading. "one flesh" may refer to the two individuals becoming one in purpose. e.g. two individuals raising children.
On Aug 23, 6:33 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > > > - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
