RE: Today Show Sybill Shepherd and NDEs
March 20, 2015 at 7:33 pm
(This post was last modified: March 20, 2015 at 7:44 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
(March 20, 2015 at 6:11 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: @ChadThe same way that you explain the efficacy of a drug during trials. Sometimes only a very small percentage of people respond to a drug. For example, the effectiveness of aspirin to prevent heart disease only shows up in a small but significant portion of the subjects. Most people gain no measurable benefit.
Here's my my question, how do you explain the larger percentage of people that didn't report anything? You seem to be just ignoring that larger percentage.
(March 20, 2015 at 7:29 pm)Surgenator Wrote:That stock objection is a straw man. Imagine a single sensible body like a boat. It has both a material of which it is made, say aluminum, and also partakes of a particular form. Anyone can see that the form 'acts' on the material by giving it properties, like buoyancy, and that the material allows the form to manifest. Form and material are inalienable and yet distinct, i.e. dualism.(March 20, 2015 at 12:55 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Then you are wrong about what I actually believe. I think human beings are hypostatic unions of the material and the ideal, in the same sense that all living things are. This union results in things having a specific nature, or soul. The difference between my position and that of a physical reductionist is that I do not think the motions of sensible bodies provide the necessary and sufficient conditions for sentience.
A dualist huh. If you have two different things, material and ideal, how do they interact with each other. There has to be some mediator that is both part material and part ideal. If there is a mediator that is both material and ideal, then the material and ideal are not two different things since one object can have both. They are just different attributes of the same thing.
(March 20, 2015 at 2:42 pm)Brian37 Wrote: No Chad, there is no such thing as a "soul". If "souls" were part of evolution all life would have "souls" and you know damned well that you don't assign that to all life. ...unless you are willing to give virus and bacteria and cockroaches "souls" too, you are doing nothing but special pleading.Soul is just another way of referring to the essential nature of a thing. All living things, including viruses and cockroaches, have souls because they have essential natures. To a lesser extent non-living things, like photons, also have souls because they have essential natures.