Does a Human Being have a body?

[Open Heart]

Well, it's real potential I suppose, but what does that mean?

Consider a field of wheat, ripe unto harvest. It is a potential harvest.
It is not yet harvested, so only potentially at that point. It has real potential.
Suppose next day hail destroys the crop, so no wheat remains to harvest. It then has been transformed from a potential harvest to there being no longer any possible harvest, no potential harvest.

So yes, the potential is real - WHEN IT IS REAL. When the potential is no longer real, it is not real, not a real potential.
The potential in this case never became actual, the potential harvest was never an actual harvest.

So a big difference between "potential" and "real." Never real, never actual, in this case. Only (at one point) potential.

In your analogy, you treating only the harvest as something worthwhile. Carrying that analogy over into human beings, that would be like saying that only humans of fertile age having lots of children are worthwhile. I can't agree with that. I think a five year old boy is delightful, just as is a wise old woman.

 

[Open Heart]

Now you've changed the subject to "what is real?"

Could not admit you had changed it from "what is potential" to "what is unseen," and now to "what is real?" What next?

Well, we HAVE gone off onto a tangent, a second conversation, into the possibility that what may be causing disagreement in our first conversation is a severe difference in how we see the world. I have no problems pursuing a second conversation. If you don't want to, then simply don't reply.

Yes, I started the second conversation when I made the comment, "It's like we speak two different languages" and then asked if you knew your MBTI type.

 

[SPF]

I gave you a definition, an encyclopedia definition of that, which I think is a good starting point.

First off, this is just really funny that you actually are attempting to acknowledge wikipedia as a credible encyclopedia. I know when I was wrapping up my undergrad work, as in, basic college level work, even there the teachers said that if we cited wikipedia in a paper that we would automatically get an F. Since we are looking for a technical definition of body here that we can use to further a conversation, let's stick to actual, credible resources.

Body (Merrian Webster):
1a : the main part of a plant or animal body especially as distinguished from limbs and head
1b : the main, central, or principal part: such as
(1) architecture : the nave of a church
(2) :the bed or box of a vehicle on or in which the load is placed
(3) : the enclosed or partly enclosed part of an automobile
- the truck's body, hood, and fenders

2a : the organized physical substance of an animal or plant either living or dead

Body (Dictionary.com):
1.the physical structure and material substance of an animal or plant,living or dead.
2.a corpse; carcass.
3.the trunk or main mass of a thing:

Body (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry):
The physical structure that carries the life of an organism. Bodies differ in types, structures, sizes, etc.

Douglas, do you accept these definitions? If not, can you explain your issue with them, and then provide us with an alternative working definition of body?

It seems like the problem we're running into here at the very beginning is that even with regards to the definition of body, you're taking in your preconceived beliefs and are attempting to fabricate a definition of your own that will lead to the conclusions you are driving at. Let's try to avoid that. This ought to be an easy first step. How do we define "body" ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Since we are looking for a technical definition of body here that we can use to further a conversation, let's stick to actual, credible resources.

Did the discussion migrate away from the title "human being" to
just defining a body ?

When Yahweh gives life, even if it is one or two cells, is it not LIFE! YAHWEH GIVES ? (as He Says in Scripture)
Then He forms the body in the womb, as He Pleases.
(no argument there, is there? Nor that a body is formed as He Pleases, for the LIFE! He Created )

 

[SPF]

Did the discussion migrate away from the title "human being" to
just defining a body ?

When Yahweh gives life, even if it is one or two cells, is it not LIFE! YAHWEH GIVES ? (as He Says in Scripture)
Then He forms the body in the womb, as He Pleases.
(no argument there, is there? Nor that a body is formed as He Pleases, for the LIFE! He Created )

Well, since Douglas uses his own fabricated definitions that nobody else on the planet uses to prove points only he believes, I thought defining our terms was really the first place we should go.

Douglas uses his personal definition of body to support his personal definition of human being, so we need to first come to a right understanding of what a body actually is.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yes, yes, though even once a definition is decided, ..... oh well, that's a good first step, yes,
concerning 'body',
but the major difficulty it looks like will be his accepting what Yahweh Says and the LIFE! Yahweh gives in the womb that for thousands of years Jews looked to HIM for sons and daughters, LIFE! starting in the womb, not fully developed except IN Yahweh's Plan and Purpose, (and also except adoption etc which also may be fine and perfect to gain a family, and usually comes 'with a "body" ' ... )

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

First off, this is just really funny that you actually are attempting to acknowledge wikipedia as a credible encyclopedia. I know when I was wrapping up my undergrad work, as in, basic college level work, even there the teachers said that if we cited wikipedia in a paper that we would automatically get an F. Since we are looking for a technical definition of body here that we can use to further a conversation, let's stick to actual, credible resources.

Body (Merrian Webster):
1a : the main part of a plant or animal body especially as distinguished from limbs and head
1b : the main, central, or principal part: such as
(1) architecture : the nave of a church
(2) :the bed or box of a vehicle on or in which the load is placed
(3) : the enclosed or partly enclosed part of an automobile
- the truck's body, hood, and fenders

2a : the organized physical substance of an animal or plant either living or dead

Body (Dictionary.com):
1.the physical structure and material substance of an animal or plant,living or dead.
2.a corpse; carcass.
3.the trunk or main mass of a thing:

Body (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry):
The physical structure that carries the life of an organism. Bodies differ in types, structures, sizes, etc.

Douglas, do you accept these definitions? If not, can you explain your issue with them, and then provide us with an alternative working definition of body?

It seems like the problem we're running into here at the very beginning is that even with regards to the definition of body, you're taking in your preconceived beliefs and are attempting to fabricate a definition of your own that will lead to the conclusions you are driving at. Let's try to avoid that. This ought to be an easy first step. How do we define "body" ?

Don't know how this spurious stuff got here!

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Wikipedia has done a lot of the work for us, in looking at what a "human body" is, but now you would take us back to having only definitions of "body," which means we must figure out which are relevant in what sense to that particular kind of body?

Let us discuss actually applicable elements of a good definition.

The human body is the entire structure of a human being. It is composed of many different types of cells that together create tissues and subsequently organ systems. They ensure homeostasis and the viability of the human body.

Please note: the human body is the entire structure of a human being. It is composed of many different types of cells [NOT ONE CELL for sure!] that together are tissues and organ systems.

And there is homeostasis that ensures the viability of the human body.

Interesting how "human body" helps define what a "human being" is.

Notice how the body of a human being is the entire structure of a human being.
DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT ONE SENTENCE, THE BODY is the entire structure of a human being, or can we accept that as the beginning of a good definition of "human body"?

Is it maybe some other kind of body?
Perhaps you can find something in your official definitions of "body" that indicates whether this is the direction to go, or not?

 

[SPF]

Notice how the body of a human being is the entire structure of a human being.
DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT ONE SENTENCE, THE BODY is the entire structure of a human being, or can we accept that as the beginning of a good definition of "human body"?

Yes, I can agree that the physical body of a living organism constitutes the entire physical structure of that being. I believe the below definitions also support that idea.

Body (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry):
The physical structure that carries the life of an organism. Bodies differ in types, structures, sizes, etc.

Body (Dictionary.com):
1.the physical structure and material substance of an animal or plant,living or dead.

The important thing to note of course is that the development of a human being takes roughly 25 years, so the "entire structure" of the human body is going to look very different at different developmental stages. For instance, at fertilization, the "entire structure" of the human body consists of one cell (for a very very brief period of time of course).

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Yes, I can agree that the physical body of a living organism constitutes the entire physical structure of that being. I believe the below definitions also support that idea.

Body (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry):
The physical structure that carries the life of an organism. Bodies differ in types, structures, sizes, etc.

Body (Dictionary.com):
1.the physical structure and material substance of an animal or plant,living or dead.

.

These are really really crap definitions. And I will tell you why.
(You of course could not actually say anything against the encyclopedia definition I presented.)

"The physical structure that carries the life of an organism." Or it doesn't !
The physical structure that is the human being body may be alive or it may be dead.
So "carries the life" is spurious, totally spurious.
LIFE has nothing to do with, cannot be part of any definition of human body, since ANY HUMAN BODY may be alive, or may be dead. (And over time will be both, of course.)
Of course bodies don't much "differ in types" when they are all human being bodies.

If the dictionary.com definition were actually of "body," and not something else, it would say "the material structure and material substance..." without what is tagged on at the end.

On the other hand, if it were claimed to be a definition of "human being body," then I would propose it would read, "The physical structure and material substance of an animal that is a human being, living or dead."

NOTE I LEFT OUT YOUR OBVIOUSLY FALSE IMPUTATION, that "... the human being body consists of one cell..." edit: I have pointed out a number of times that a human being is NOT a one-celled animal, those are invisible amoeba, etc..

btw, did you notice how your two definitions contradict each other?

 

[SPF]

No, I did not notice how the two definitions contradicted each other, I still don't see any contradiction.

In trying to interpret what you responded with, it looks like your issue with the CARM definition is that it doesn't acknowledge that once an organism dies it still possesses a body (until it decomposes of course).

And your issue with the dictionary.com definition is that it uses the word "physical structure" instead of "material structure" ? Those seem to be rather synonymous to me.

How about we bring the two definitions together and see if you'll be content with this:

Body: The material structure and substance of an animal or plant,living or dead. Bodies differ in types, structures, sizes, etc.

Would that definition suffice for body?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Body: The material structure and substance of an animal or plant,living or dead. Bodies differ in types, structures, sizes, etc.

Would that definition suffice for body?

Of course not.
I just pointed out that it cannot both be, "of an animal or plant," and be a general definition of body. It is more like a definition of "human being body."

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I did not notice how the two definitions contradicted each other, I still don't see any contradiction.

In the first special "pro-life" definition, it is claimed the body "carries the physical life," that is, must be alive.

In the other more standard one, it is claimed the body may be dead or alive. Those two are not compatible.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

And your issue with the dictionary.com definition is that it uses the word "physical structure" instead of "material structure" ? Those seem to be rather synonymous to me.

No, not at all.

If the dictionary.com definition were actually of "body," and not something else, it would say "the material structure and material substance..." without what is tagged on at the end.

"Without what is tagged on at the end." Nothing about anything wrong with "material structure" or "material substance."

 

[SPF]

I just pointed out that it cannot both be, "of an animal or plant," and be a general definition of body.

What's wrong with including both animals and plants? I'm trying to nail down a generic and broad definition of a body. I don't see why we couldn't include plants in there, but sure, for you we can remove it. How about this:

body: The material structure and substance of an animal.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

What's wrong with including both animals and plants? I'm trying to nail down a generic and broad definition of a body. I don't see why we couldn't include plants in there, but sure, for you we can remove it. How about this:

body: The material structure and substance of an animal.

We have not need of a generic and broad definition of a body. We need to figure of what the more narrowly defined body of a human being is. What parts of a general definition of a body apply to the human being body.

YOU CANNOT SAY IT IS THE GENERAL BROAD DEFINITION AND THEN RESTRICT IT TO "OF AN ANIMAL" Self-contradictory!

 

[SPF]

Can you let me know what is wrong with the definition that I provided? Please reword it to something you would accept.

body: The material structure and substance of an animal.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Can you let me know what is wrong with the definition that I provided? Please reword it to something you would accept.

body: The material structure and substance of an animal.

ANY material structure and substance, probably.
Does not get one very far.

And then would probably not be true of "the body of literature," and a few other things.
HEADED IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.

Try for what we really want, a definition of a human being body:
The physical structure and material substance of an animal that is a human being.
AND,
The human body is the entire structure of a human being. It is composed of many different types of cells that together are tissues and organ systems. They ensure homeostasis and the viability of the human body.

 

[SPF]

Well let's look at both definitions, and then apply them to the OP.

1. body: The material structure and substance of an animal.

Under the above definition I would say that the answer to the topic question, "Does a Human Being have a body?" would be a resounding yes.

2. The human body is the entire structure of a human being. It is composed of many different types of cells that together create tissues and subsequently organ systems. They ensure homeostasis and the viability of the human body.

Under this very specific and detailed definition of a human body, I would say the the answer to the topic question, "Does a Human Being have a body?" would be "not always."

For clarification, I would say that while a fetus inside the womb does eventually qualify as having a body, in its most early developmental stages a human being does not possess all of the prerequisites in your definition.

Also, under your definition, it would be possible for a human being to actually lose their body. For example, there is an Italian doctor who in the next year will perform the first head transplant (or full body transplant) in China. It is not inconceivable to imagine, if he is successful, that eventually we will be able to place heads upon prosthetic bodies. If we utilize the very specific definition above, then we would have to say that it would be possible for a human being to lose their body.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

1. body: The material structure and substance of an animal.
Under the above definition I would say that the answer to the topic question, "Does a Human Being have a body?" would be a resounding yes.

I just pointed out how that definition of "body" cannot be true. Now you want to use it?

Nevertheless,
IF YOUR ARE WILLING TO ADMIT AT LEAST ONE TRUTH, I think we can agree that the correct answer to "Does an human being have a body?" is yes.