Persons are physical organisms and nothing more than physical organisms? Then why use the term “persons” in addition to “humans” or “human beings”?
They are subsets. As dogs and cats are subsets of ‘animals.’ My point was explained in my previous post.
So you do believe persons are biological machines?
There is no conclusive evidence that they are anything more
It is evidence that there is a higher level of existence than that of beings which do not know they exist.
Yes, but it is not evidence of the existence of God. If you’re on an extrapolation mission, then I should point out two things: Firstly that there is no logic for extrapolation beyond what we can demonstrate, and secondly if you do overstep that bound, you need to show that your extrapolation leads to God and no further.
Then why do you believe persons are “purely biological”?
There’s a difference between believing *some *things for which there are no *conclusive *evidence, and believing
everything for which there is
zero evidence.
Incredulity based on the absurdity and unintelligibility of the proposition that rational beings are composed of nothing more than irrational particles which exist for no reason or purpose whatsoever…
Well, yes. You don’t see how it can happen, so God must have done it. This is an illogical, irrational conclusion because it has no evidence to support it.
Once again you are assuming that scientific explanation is the only valid form of explanation.
Yes. The scientific method is the only reliable form of explanation. Anything else is, by definition, subjective.That’s kind of the point of the SM.
So any unique event - such as the Big Bang - is not an explanation?
The Big Bang is a theory, supported by results of repeatable experimentation.
All subjective explanations are worthless?
Not necessarily worthless, but not reliable enough in themselves to provide an acceptable “look-no-further” explanation.
All explanations which lack predictive power are unreliable?
Yep.
All explanations which refer to unobservable entities should be disregarded?
Not discarded, but challenged and not just blindly trusted as the truth.
Your basis for disagreement seems to be that a subjective (and therefore unreliable) answer is just as good as an objective one. Now we know where you stand!
Not knowing is a lousy reason to reject an explanation which is in accord with our personal experience.
I know you like playing with other people’s words, but in fact you are wrong. If it works for you personally, that’s absolutely fine, but you shouldn’t try to convince other people that
your experiences have any validity in an objective reality.
Pop across to India!
Eh?
If you cannot define it it seems to be an indication that you do not believe there is a self, i.e. an intangible entity.
Not at all. Where did you get that idea?
Do you mean that thoughts and decisions are aspects of brain activity? If so where exactly do the decisions occur?
Oh, here we go again - we’ve been here before, you and I. Just because the intricate workings of the brain have not been precisely mapped out and explained in great detail, it doesn’t mean that thoughts and decisions occur elsewhere. This is your personal incredulity showing again.
Let me put it more precisely. If all human beings have thoughts and make decisions does that count as objective evidence that thoughts and decisions occur?
Only by virtue of the fact that we can observe the results of such activity, that we each personally have such activity and can recognise the consistency of that activity in others.
How would you distinguish between ‘physical’ and ‘tangible’ ?
Well, I would say that light is intangible, but it is still physical in that it can be described in terms of physical formulae. Just as an example.
The boot is on the other foot! How do intuition and inspiration occur in brain activity?
As you are aware, nobody knows. If you want to take this as evidence of a higher power, go right ahead. Just be aware that no evidence supports your supposition.
So if laws and morality did not exist in a particular part of the world human beings would not have a right to life?
Not by the standards of the people in that part of the world at that time. There is plenty of empirical evidence for this in actuality. For example, slaves ‘rightfully’ killed by their masters in 17th and 18th century colonial America…
And the persons who lived prior to human laws did not have a right to life either?
Not by the standards of the day, no. Only by our modern moral standards.
How are they related to physical objects?
That depends on the truth. A truth about a particular physical process will be related to the objects involved in that process.
So you have no control over your thoughts? They are produced by bioelectrical activity?
Yes. There is no evidence to support a contrary view.
So there is no reason why we should fight for it?
I didn’t say that, I just said that justice is a matter of perspective. An eye for an eye used to be considered justice, but not any more (generally). Stoning for blasphemy used to be considered justice, but not any more (at least in the civilised world).
Do you believe tangible reality is more fundamental than intangible reality? Or do they co-exist?
Within the scope of my definitions above, they co-exist. If you’re talking about ‘supernatural reality’ then my instinct is to call the phrase a dichotomy, because there is no evidence of any supernatural events or entities.
