Ham, The problem is; that Craig is making an assumption (inorganic awareness) while you are not (nothing). He then somehow is able to think that the lack of an assumption is an assumption on your part, which he then asks you to prove. This seems to happen with great frequency on this list. Muddy thinking.
Micah -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hamilton Priday Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 6:01 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?) Craig -- Since it is commonly accepted that Value is a uniquely human perception, and that perception is an exclusive property of cerebral organisms, it's absurd for you to expect me to support an established premise. If you really want to argue for the inorganic perception of value, I suggest you begin by defining 'awareness'. You said: > Inorganic awareness is a physical principle. My dictionary defines Awareness as "having realization, perception, or knowledge." It is the psychic capability of the subjective self. By what definition do you justify the assertion that awareness is a physical principle? Or, don't you acknowledge anything as non-physical? - Ham moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
