Hi, Straggler.
Straggler writes:
think I would claim that humans have an immaterial component that is able to detect immaterial entities. A "soul" by any other name.
That was also my first impulse.
The real problem for that argument is that it only shifts the problem back a notch: try explaining how your immaterial component interacts with your material component without running into the same problem.
I don't have an answer for it. The only thing I
could offer would be that "immaterial" doesn't necessarily mean "undetectable," but then I'd be left with the question of why we don't detect more immaterial things on a regular basis.
-----
Straggler writes:
If it's only distinguishable feature from biased guessing is the degree of personal conviction it induces then I would argue that the term "evidence" is being abused.
Of course. Rahvin provided a good summary of all that.
The only point that I was trying to make is that I would suspect that, for most who believe in immaterial entities, evidence is entirely beside the point. In fact, I would argue that most Christians believe that the lack of actual evidence for spiritual things is an essential characteristic of spiritual things.
So, most theists wouldn't even complain, even if your point were correct (and I think it is). It's that "faith" thing that you didn't want to talk about, I guess.
Yeah, it's a conundrum, for sure: it's just not one that a theist would understand.
{AbE:
Arguing with me probably isn't very fun, is it?}
Edited by Bluejay, : Addition
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
