(August 26, 2013 at 11:59 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: Secondly, I have already told you, that given the evidence in favor of abiogenesis producing amino acids which are the building blocks of life, and the lack of evidence in favor of a magical appearance from dust, I find the former to be much more believable. That being said, I don't have enough knowledge to say that one or the other are absolutely true.
You understand that people can hold things as true in any number of varying degrees of certainty, right?
...and I believe we all identify ourselves with a certain channel of information that presents itself in consciousness. I believe that consciousness exists in the mind. I believe the mind to be material because there is no evidence for an alternative. In the light of all of this...When the physical material body dies (brain included), the identity we prescribe to the consciousness it contains dies too. This seems believable given the evidence.
I am not asking you if you are absolutely certain about your views. Nor am I asking you to comment on whether or not you think your views are absolutely true.
All I am asking is what do you believe is the more plausible explanation for our origination.
You attribute it to abiogenesis or life arising from non-living organic compounds whose molecules contained carbon.
Life from non living matter.....
Ok, now moving on let me ask you to confirm that you believe that what most people have traditionally referred to as the "mind" is simply a word that refers to the various chemical reactions that occur within the brain and that the concept is reducible in purely materialistic terms.
Is this correct?
