No Belinda, that is not quite my position. My position is that in the absence of any subject at all, how do you know there is no sound or light? Boagle, and apparently you as well, assume that there are no perceptual qualities associated with the physical world unless a subject is involved, but how could that be known for certain? That is only an assumption. What then is the physical world actually like? It would have to have some properties on its own, independent of those humans bring to the experience. It couldn't have no properties whatsoever.Belinda wrote: I am presuming that OTavern thinks with George Berkeley that even when no mortal creature is there in the forest to hear the tree's crash, God hears it.
And that God is the creator of biology, and everything.
It's impossible to argue against such an elevated position as God.This is why God is not the province of science, since the God hypothesis cannot be falsified
Your problem Belinda is that you want to reduce opposing positions to being indefensible which then allows you to dismiss them easily. At bottom, you have a straw man mentality because you haven't seriously considered opposing views, only the simplistic version you conceive parthenogenically in your brain.