• Christian school teacher arrested for alleged sexual assault; more victims suspected
(archived link)
• Christ the King bookkeeper gets 2 years in prison for embezzling church funds
(archived link)
• Ex-teacher at Pope John XXIII High School is sentenced to 10 years in prison for taking upskirt photos of students
(archived link)
• Pakistani religious body declares using VPN is against Islamic law
• Hate pastor renegs on promise to refund tithes
• Priest faces life imprisonment over third child sex offences conviction
• Church of England head resigns over handling of sex abuse scandal
(archived link)
• Ohio pastor accused of raping a juvenile facing 6 felony counts
(archived link)
Not really, no. My position is objectively based on fewer assumptions than yours. Occam’s razor is certainly useful, but it is not a tool for determining truth. It’s only a tool for determining the simplest explanation.
Your assumption that sentient beings, and their heads, must be biological places your claim in a much more precarious position relative to the razor than mine.
You’re making the argument that it is, or could be, a sentient, angry head. No evidence or arguments for that position, other than “well we can’t say it isn’t” have been presented. A head is a defined object, and there’s no reason to modify the definition of “head” to include the sun. Your argument doesn’t make much more sense than “a hydrogen atom may be a carbon atom, your assumption that it isn’t is precarious.”
Occam’s razor is indeed for simpler arguments rather than article strictly for truth. But from my experience as an engineer, generally the fewer assumptions you make when coming to a conclusion, the closer to the truth you’ll actually be.
Correct. So assumptions like “life must be biological, and alternative claims are outlandish” places you objectively further from the truth.
“Life” is a defined term, a biological function. Non-biological objects are, by definition, not living. This isn’t an assumption, it’s a definition. Again, you’re essentially arguing that hydrogen atoms are also carbon atoms.
Only if you define it that way, which means that you need an alternative term for non-biological entities which, otherwise, fulfill all the actually functional landmarks of life: sensing, processing, and subsequently interacting with the environment. There’s no proof that these phenomena are implicitly bound to biological systems.
Call it what you want, but there’s absolutely no evidence (besides the circumstantial evidence of observed phenomenon in an implicitly biased environment) that biology is the only way to achieve sentience. Our knowledge of the mechanisms of sentience is woefully limited. Biological-chauvinism only cements your own myopic biases, skepticism taken to the extreme of prejudice.
I’m claiming that carbon and hydrogen are both atomic elements composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. You’re claiming that hydrogen is the only legitimate substance and carbon, by definition, isn’t a real substance.
A definition is not an assumption, it’s a description of something which has certain known properties. If something else fulfills similar functions to a living being, but it isn’t a biological entity, then, by the biological definition, it isn’t alive. I’m not sure what your issue is here. It’s not like we’re ever going to run out of definitions. Are you arguing in favor of animism?
My claim is that carbon and hydrogen are distinct substances with particular properties and definitions. There is no “one true substance.”
Why is the definition of biological life relevant to a conversation about nuclear sentience? You’re the only one throwing the word “life” around. Arguing against its misuse when I haven’t actually used it is classic straw manning.
You’re the one who started arguing that a head may not necessarily be part of a biological being, which was irrelevant to my point. I’m not sure why you’re so concerned about nuclear sentience to begin with, quite frankly. I was just enjoying the conversation. I raised the conjectural angry solar head to demonstrate a claim that can be disproved scientifically to show that some religions have a stronger basis in reality. The sun doesn’t have the properties of a sentient head, so such a claim is false. What is your point, and how does it relate to mine?
When your point is that the sun can’t be a disembodied godhead because heads are biological, then yes refuting the biological limitation is of central relevance. Claims can’t really be disproven scientifically, that’s not science. Claims can be evaluated and judged scientifically that the sun doesn’t have the properties of a biological head, there is no scientific test to judge that the sun cannot be the head of some unknown non-biological sentient being.
Science only determines whether data is consistent with a given model. Nothing more, nothing less.