He discusses the possibility of this occurring through natural theology, or contemplation, but decides that this is not possible due to the “ignorance and stupidity of the people” (sec. 6, pg. 29, para 1). He continues on to refute other possible explanations, before concluding that it occurs as a natural result of the flattery system; humans place one God above all others and say that he is omnipresent and infinite (sec. 6, pg.
He writes, "it is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims. "Gould's and theists who believe in evolution arguement could be pragmatical,
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that 1) Ideas are manifestly passive, 2) But because of the mind-dependent status of idea, they cannot have any characteristics which they are not perceived to have. Therefore, 3) ideas are passive, that is, they possess no causal power (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). However, the argument of a higher being or spirit are the reason material substances exist is just absurd. First, what happen if two people perceive things differently? For example, if one person is color blind and the color blind person perceive the information of the object different than the people who are not color blind.
Hume’s argument against induction is that “only meaningful propositions are relations of idea and matter of fact”. This meaning that the claim must be priori or a posteriori. However, Hume contradicts himself because his own argument does not meet his own criteria of a meaningful proposition. This is because his statement is not a relation of ideas or a matter of fact. The grue-problem is almost like predicting what will happen in the future based on what happened in the past.
Tartuffe is about a religious hypocrite, Tartuffe, who deceives a family. Most of the family is against Tartuffe, however, Orgon respected Tartuffe. Orgon trusted Tartuffe more than any of his family members because Orgon believed Tartuffe is a holy man. Perhaps since Tartuffe is believed to be more religious than the family, Orgon trusted him more. Also, Orgon is more concerned about Tartuffe than the health of his family.
People against hunting think it will kill out a species, assume hunters kill animals for no reason or to show off, and some are against it because they are vegetarians and think that there is no point to killing animals. People for hunting think it helps keep animal populations down, it provides a good food source, and has been a part of people 's survival and livelihood since the beginning of time. No matter what side you are on, almost everyone agrees
But this brought on controversy as Leibniz and Newton did not agree. In a debate with Newton’s advocate, Leibniz said that “by charging that Newton’s God was an inept watchmaker who had to reset the cosmic mechanism at intervals, while his God had already arranged for such
Steiner is a strict “ethical” vegan who believes that veganism is necessary because using animals for human consumption is morally wrong, while Wang argues that veganism is a transaction that could save the planet from its current fate. So, who is right, or is there really a definite answer? First, Gary Steiner offers an emotion-based, tug at your heartstrings perspective on why we should become vegan. His main claim (of policy) is that we should become vegans because it is inhumane to kill animals for human needs. He supports his cause by refuting two counterarguments from those who ask if animal suffering is comparable to human suffering: those who believe animals are not as important as humans because they are not in God’s image, and those who believe animals do not think as humans and so cannot suffer as
Rene Descartes was essentially saying we cant know anything for sure therefore we cant have real knowledge. Where Russel was more along the lines of its true we cant disprove certain things, but that doesnt make them likely. its entirely possible that we are just brains in a vat but its also highly unlikely and there is no reason to believe that is true. the famous tea pot thought experiment represents this well. what if i told you that between the earth and mars there is a tea pot revolving around the sun?
It has two possible solutions. One solution considers that intelligent extraterrestrials do not exist, and the other solution considers a variety of hypotheses that consider that intelligent extraterrestrials do exist, but there is a reason beyond the lack of evidence. Physicists Michael Hart and Frank Tipler argue for the lack of intelligent extraterrestrial life, claiming that they are nonexistent in the galaxy and/or universe and all other reasonings for the lack of evidence regarding their existence are inaccurate. Other hypotheses suggest that intelligent extraterrestrial life does exist and their is an explanation for the lack of evidence. The Zoo Theory claims that intellectual extraterrestrials do not want their presence be known to humanity and that humanity lives in a somewhat zoo like environment that “they” observe.
Galileo Galilei was an Italian astronomer who disagreed with the Roman Catholic theory of geocentrism. He was not a heretic because he was a Christian and had similar beliefs to the Roman Catholics, but he did not agree with the Church’s theory of the position and movement of Earth in the Solar System. Document A is an excerpt of a letter to Duchess Christina of Tuscany written by Galilei, counter-arguing the heresy claims. In the letter, Galileo wrote, “Can an opinion be heretical and yet have no concern with the salvation of souls?” Although he did not believe in the astronomical theory of the Church, he believed that his scientific thoughts should not interfere with his religious beliefs. According to Document D, Pope John Paul II said
Aristotle presents several arguments to explain and defend his proposition of an immobile Earth. These arguments, however, tend to be based on abstract hypotheses rather than empirical evidence. In fact, the idea of the corruptibility of the Earth in mutual exclusion from the perfection of that outside the Earth, an idea fundamental to his arguments, is itself rather unfounded. Aristotle makes this claim with little evidence, only that the celestial bodies appear to be spherical and unchanging and move in a circle about the Earth, and that