User talk:Geofracture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Soul

I am reverting your edits to soul again. Please read some of Wikipedia's core policies including no original research and Verifiability. Everything in Wikipedia must be attributed to a reliable source. Regards, -- Jeff3000 04:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pardon

Your comments regarding which section, specifically? There was no edit made to the Bahai section, which appears to be your focus.

It has nothing to to be any section or focus. I watch over many full pages, just not sections. Your edits don't pass by Wikipedia policies. -- Jeff3000 04:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Property Dualism

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/soul.html

The Existence of the Soul There are some who deny the existence of the soul. This view is called physicalism because it upholds that we are purely and only physical beings. In contrast, dualism holds that we are not merely physical but, in addition to being physical, we also have a non-physical aspect of our being. Dualists differ among themselves on the nature of the soul. The two main views are property dualism and substance dualism. There are significant differences among these views, and so they must be clearly understood if we are going to argue for the Christian understanding of the soul. And in order to understand these differences, we must understand certain key terms. Key Terms Substance A substance is an independent entity, such as an apple. Moreland helps clarify this definition by pointing out five characteristics of a substance. First, a substance is an individual entity. It is not a quality that can exist in many places at once, but is a self-contained entity, distinct form all other entities of its nature, and so can only be in one place at a time. Second, a substance is continuous entity-which means it remains the same through change. For example, "a leaf can go from green to red, yet the leaf itself is the same entity before, during, and after the change" (41). Third, a substance is a fundamental existent. This means, in other words, that "they are not in other things or had by other things" (41). For example, an apple has the property of redness but is not the same thing as redness. This is why I defined a substance above as an independent entity. What I mean is that it does not depend upon something else (other than God) for its existence. It can exist "by itself." Fourth, a substance is a unity of "parts, properties, and capacities." Moreland gives the example of his dog, which has the property of brownness, parts such as legs and teeth, and capacities such as barking. "As a substance," he writes," Fido is a unity of all the properties, parts, and capacities had by him." Fifth and finally, "a substance has casual powers. It can do things in the world. A dog can bark; a leaf can hit the ground" (41, emphasis added). Properties A property is an attribute of a substance, examples of which are triangularity and hardness. Moreland helps clarify the nature of a property by pointing out several characteristics and contrasting it with substance. First, a property is not an independent entity but must be in an something else (namely, a substance). For example, one cannot find redness existing all by itself. It is always found in something, such as an apple. So whereas a substance is a fundamental existent and has other things but is not in other things, a property does not have other things but is in other things. One must ask of a property "what is it that has that property," but it would be nonsense to ask that of a substance. As Moreland writes concisely, "Substances have properties; properties are had by substances" (42). Second, a property is a universal. This means that it can be many places at once because it "can be in more than one thing at the same time." In contrast, a substance can only be in one place at a time because it cannot be in anything. Third, properties posses immutability. This means that, unlike substances, they cannot maintain their identity through change. If they were to change, they would loose their identity. For example, "when a leaf goes from green to red, the leaf [which is a substance] changes by losing an old property and gaining a new one. But the property of redness does not change and become the property of greenness. Properties can come and go, but they do not change in their internal constitution or nature" (42).

It was a succinct statement regarding the nonreligious belief of property dualism.

Personal websites such as those on geocities are not considered reliable sources, see WP:RS. Sources should not be self-published, and should come from locations which have editorial oversight. -- Jeff3000 04:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that I am simply being singled out as a vandal because of, what, being new?

This ends my contributions to Wikipedia.

You are not being singled out. Every contribution and contributer must abide by Wikipedia policies to assure that Wikipedia is reliable. I would suggest that you read the wikipedia policies noted above, and contribute in line with them; i.e. cite your sources from journals, books, etc. -- Jeff3000 04:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/dualism.htm

http://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/MindDict/propertydualism.html

http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?property+dualism

http://courses.umass.edu/psy391d/dualism.html

Great! Use those sources and add to the article. Make sure that you write in an encyclopedic and neutral point of view (another wikipedia policy), and cite the statements using the {{cite}} templates. -- Jeff3000 05:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've lost my stomach for contributing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.69.61.32 (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC).