No it is not metaphorical. You must have missed testimonies by highly respected and cherished Catholic saints, such as St Faustina, Fr. Bosco and numerous others that were given visions of hell during their lives on earth and reported them in great detail.. It is not metaphorical, it is very real, both physical and spiritual torture, including by actual fire, "lit by the wrath of God" (st Faustina), in addition to many other extremely cruel methods of physical torture, all everlasting. St. Faustina said she immediately got physically sick from the very sight (and smell) of the pain and agony the people in hell were suffering. I know, not all testimonies are strictly "binding" on Catholics in the sense that every word must be believed, but you must have reasons to state why you thing these Saints were lying.

no need for you to talk much. if that happens, then,just do it thru experiments in the lab..

im not changing the subject.

The subject was the possibility of disembodied minds.

if a single-cell organism dcided to evolve itself in an organism with systems like nervous system . . . .

If you are under the impression that evolutionary theory suggests such a thing could even possibly have happened, then you need to change your reading habits in a big way.

i just wanted to know how a 'nothing' creates? im not changing the subject.

if a single-cell organism dcided to evolve itself in an organism with systems like nervous system, respiratory system, genito-urinary system, etc.. how these evolved when the brain is not yet developed? can you demonstrate for me what were the stages of its development?

Thank you very much! The only way for us to come to greater truth is to work together! It is never fun when these discussions turn into trying to "win" a debate. We both win if we come closer to the truth of reality together.

I would tend to agree that our view is similar, with perhaps the difference being more our underlying worldviews that how we make sense of justice itself.

Thank you for the time and effort you have put into this conversation in helping me to understand your position better. I think this is a good stopping point, unless you would like to pursue some point further.

I think we are actually closer in agreement than it may seem (most likely because of a slightly misunderstanding of how we were using our terms).

My own position is actually relatively simple and straight-forward. I think we'd ultimately agree that justice exists in some way in the situations and relationships of things outside our mind. Our intellect (i.e., human nature) is capable of recognizing correct ordering of situations/relationships (justice) or incorrect ordering of situations/relationships (injustice).

So we do "subjectively" recognize justice/injustice in objective situations. But of course this doesn't mean that justice purely exists in our mind. It must in some way exist "out there".

Hello Phil,

Thank you for the clarification. I also think people do not always see the implications of their beliefs. On the other hand, there is also the risk of inferring implications where they do not exist. Both are important to consider in any conversation.

Is personal opinion not a quality of the mind? Isn't personal opinion a certain quality of the mind? How would you hold that justice is not a matter of personal opinion, the how would you also hold that justice is a quality of the mind? One would need to argue that personal opinion has nothing to do with our mind, which doesn't seem to make much sense.

I do not understand this position nor the conclusion. The mind consists of many qualities. Opinions are not the defining, underlying quality that must be the foundation of other parts of the mind. Therefore, it would only make sense to say that justice is a matter of personal opinion if opinion was first shown to be a mental quality that it is based upon. A person may be angry, and this does not change if they are of the opinion that they are not -- I have encountered people in denial of the fact that they are angry, even as they are yelling at others, and their opinion does not define the presence or absences of the mental quality of emotion that they are experiencing. Justice is not a matter of personal opinion, although it arises from human nature and from the mind, in the same way as many other mental qualities.

My goal is also to better understand the views of others. I find the second part interesting, however. Do you often find that the people you speak with do not know their own view?

Ultimately, that statement is saying that many times we don't work hard enough to understand the other person's view fully. I want to know the other person's view as good, or better, than they themselves know it.

I also don't think we normally see the full implications of our own view many times. Either because we haven't investigated it enough, or we are simply blind to it. (I'm not somehow immune to this; I throw myself in this as well.)

Talking to someone, such as yourself, helps me to clarify and/or change my own view. Ultimately, I'm interested in discovering the truth of reality. And that is what we are doing together...searching for truth together! It's a height of pride to think we can figure out truth all be oneself.

If you are meaning objective in the sense of not being a matter of personal opinion or prejudice, then I would actually agree to the description of it being objectively just.

Yep, then we'd agree here. Shows how important it is to define terms :)

If you are meaning objective as not having to do with emotion, thought, and other qualities of the mind, then I would say it is not objectively just.

Is personal opinion not a quality of the mind? Isn't personal opinion a certain quality of the mind?

How would you hold that justice is not a matter of personal opinion, the how would you also hold that justice is a quality of the mind? One would need to argue that personal opinion has nothing to do with our mind, which doesn't seem to make much sense.