If you say so. I honestly find it humorous that you think you can mind read people over the Internet. Please, tell me what number I'm thinking of too.
Then you haven't said anything at all. You want to dispute the materialist reduction of life to the same kind of fundamental physical happenings (ie, particle interactions) that underlie non-living phenomenon because of the implications this has to your religious beliefs (ie, that no God is needed to breathe life into the world; life is a natural phenomenon, nothing supernatural is needed). Which amounts to vitalism. If you're not putting forth some version of vitalism then you need to clarify just what the hell you're saying. Not that you will, because i'm betting you don't actually have any coherent, developed view on the matter.
Well first of all, it's not necessary to have a fully developed theory of how something works to reject nonsensical assertions regarding how it works. Second of all I just explained in the part you quoted, what I'm saying.
Indeed. I assume human bodies are made of the same particles that everything else is made of. Crazy, I know....:roll:
That was just an interesting observation I made. That if someone asserted that the laws of physics were different inside human cells, you couldn't actually disprove that. Now, I would reject such an assertion on philosophical grounds (as would you), but I'm distinctly aware that my objection would be strictly philosophical.
And what allows you to suppose this isn't true of a body that has ceased living?
Because it isn't necessarily. See the case of fatal defibrillation. The heart stops working but without a structural alteration in its condition.
Oh yes you can. In fact every car is fitted with a portable "defibrillation" system. It's called the battery. You turn the key, it completes a circuit, and the starter motor torques the crankshaft in an effort to push the engine back into a cyclic quasi-steady-state known as "ON" (if conditions are right - oxygen available, etc etc)
This is exactly equivalent to defibrillation. Or chest compressions in CPR. Or when a doctor - as an emergency last resort - cuts a patients chest cavity open and literally massages the heart by hand. These are attempts to jump start the heart. To "turn the crankshaft" of a human being in an effort to push the body back into a cyclic quasi-steady-state known as "ALIVE" (if conditions are right - oxygen available, etc etc)
This is why you should actually read Deuce and I's discussion. If you had only taken a small effort to discern the context, you would know that I was referring to fatal defibrillation, when the heart is defibrillated and doesn't restart. So my state to stands, you can't render a car permanently defunct by shocking it (barring the gas tank exploding or something like that).
Nonsense. There is always a physical cause of death - lack of oxygen, physical trauma, cell damage from disease etc etc. Just like there is always a physical cause of an engine turning off (lack of oxygen, physical damage, etc etc).
When your philosophy is contradicted by actual real world examples, it's time to get a new one. I already gave a counterexample. Defibrillation (from here on out I'm going to just say defibrillation, I'm referring specifically to fatal defibrillation). This is of course a physical cause of death, but it doesn't necessarily involve any structural damage to the body.
It does everything to support my position. The difference between a living cat and dead cat - exactly like the difference between a running engine and an off engine - can be completely explained by underlying physical happenings. No supernatural non-material nonsense needed.
I've never asserted that there was anything supernatural involved, except in the original creation of the species.
Electrical happenings are structural. Physical. The electromagnetic force is an exchange of photons. A difference in electrical activity is just as physical as putting a knife through the heart. The map of particles is different.
Ah, another person who doesn't understand electrodynamics. I already explained this, but I'll do so again. Electrical activity does not require any net charges. It is an activity, which is not necessarily discernible from the static state of the charged particles involved.
But as I said at the top of this post, please read Deuce and I's discussion in full before replying again.
