Clumsy return entropic argument - part I.
D evetnaesto the century and a veritable explosion wells road vet of scientific discoveries of the time as if they were completely and once and for all separated science from religion. Increasing numbers of people has become impossible, wells road vet and certainly unnecessary to seek and find God in the everyday occurrences that are no longer around to spread a haze of mystery. Physics, chemistry, biology, medicine and technical sciences, battering god sustainer and creator of all that can be considered "holy" in "God gap" (God of the gaps), refugees from the modern world, sentenced to a homeless man hiding in in rather rare and all small holes in knowledge.
N f course, this does not in any way indicate the formal separation of religion and science in a way that the first stops them to monopolize the latter. Persistent wells road vet and very stubborn, religion is trying to impose itself as a source of science, and his confused and frightened god of science wells road vet to award a new role - the inspirers wells road vet of the inventor and creator of the primal law of nature that the same god considered, if not non-existent, it is certainly unnecessary.
With a more or less success, or influence, the struggle to reanimate grogiranog god lasts to this day, while the arguments potezani pre nearly 200 years, formulated with the explosive development of science, is often used today.
T if its short feasibility study, "Entropy and causality as proof of the existence of God," Christian apologist Met Pictures (Matt Slick) attempts to carry out the supposed truth of Christian theism, or the claim that God exists, and that is through the phenomenon in the universe can be observed. Also on the site carm.org, this author also deals with other Christians favorite topics such as abortion, evolution, homosexuality, and indeed, of atheists. But the wrong approach to these issues, some other time. Easy start philosophizing
J f course it was in the beginning comes the wrong approach, because the author assumes that something does exist "outside the universe", and that in general, and not trying to in any way confirm or prove this claim. Therefore, it is expected that the readers accept it as an axiom, that just blindly poveruju that it is really so, without delving into the facts.
N f course, if it is claimed that the universe has a cause that is beyond itself, it is necessary to start from the assumption wells road vet that the universe is only one event, although he of course is not in the physical sense. But even if you're asking yourself what this universe, picturesque document will not offer any response, although they will pretend to provide conclusions on the nature of the universe. If you set the thesis wells road vet on the cause of the universe outside the universe itself does not raise the hair on your head, "proof" of the nature of the universe, without wells road vet the definition of the universe, must compel wells road vet you to serious reflection wells road vet on whether and in general to continue to be involved in this attempt at a scientific approach to Christian manner.
And if, let's suppose, just for the sake of their own correctness and somewhat fun, it is required the definition of the universe or some kind of secret image can not informing us, or so well-known and perfectly clear, there is no need for us is repeated.
And in turn, that there is to be a "proof" of the existence of God be cloaked or mystery or assumptions about the knowledge of readers, from the very beginning we get from the image definition of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Hmmm, why is so eager right now to the definition of the laws of physics, and yet avoids a definition for whom the effort to prove the existence of God?
Q rosto to the conclusion that the claim of the existence of the causes of the universe simply necessary to ignore some basic things and insist on someone else. To konkretizovao, will explain why the picture must to avoid the definition of the universe to general and indulged in their performance of "proof".
In a rational philosophy, the term "universe" means the totality of svakolikog existence. This definition is supported by relevant encyclopedias and lexicons. So, for example, Merriam-Webster gives the definition by which the universe is "the totality of things and phenomena that have been observed or postulated." From here it is quite clear that if we assume the existence of any fact, properties or connections, they must necessarily be part of the universe, that exist in it. In this way, the idea of something that is outside the universe is not meaningful, because it points to something that has no reference - simply does not exist "outside" of the universe. wells road vet
And in turn, as much as blinking, we can not help but noticed that some goal that whole "entropy argument" to prove that there is not just something, but just something consciously, which is responsible for the creation of the universe. Theists indeed I was not disputed the need for the starting point of creation, as long as we look at it as something that is by its nature consciously, at least call it the cosmic will, which creates the universe with his mere desire, or figurative crackled more figurativnijih fingers. This kind of mental acrobatics, theists over "entropy argument" by trying to
D evetnaesto the century and a veritable explosion wells road vet of scientific discoveries of the time as if they were completely and once and for all separated science from religion. Increasing numbers of people has become impossible, wells road vet and certainly unnecessary to seek and find God in the everyday occurrences that are no longer around to spread a haze of mystery. Physics, chemistry, biology, medicine and technical sciences, battering god sustainer and creator of all that can be considered "holy" in "God gap" (God of the gaps), refugees from the modern world, sentenced to a homeless man hiding in in rather rare and all small holes in knowledge.
N f course, this does not in any way indicate the formal separation of religion and science in a way that the first stops them to monopolize the latter. Persistent wells road vet and very stubborn, religion is trying to impose itself as a source of science, and his confused and frightened god of science wells road vet to award a new role - the inspirers wells road vet of the inventor and creator of the primal law of nature that the same god considered, if not non-existent, it is certainly unnecessary.
With a more or less success, or influence, the struggle to reanimate grogiranog god lasts to this day, while the arguments potezani pre nearly 200 years, formulated with the explosive development of science, is often used today.
T if its short feasibility study, "Entropy and causality as proof of the existence of God," Christian apologist Met Pictures (Matt Slick) attempts to carry out the supposed truth of Christian theism, or the claim that God exists, and that is through the phenomenon in the universe can be observed. Also on the site carm.org, this author also deals with other Christians favorite topics such as abortion, evolution, homosexuality, and indeed, of atheists. But the wrong approach to these issues, some other time. Easy start philosophizing
J f course it was in the beginning comes the wrong approach, because the author assumes that something does exist "outside the universe", and that in general, and not trying to in any way confirm or prove this claim. Therefore, it is expected that the readers accept it as an axiom, that just blindly poveruju that it is really so, without delving into the facts.
N f course, if it is claimed that the universe has a cause that is beyond itself, it is necessary to start from the assumption wells road vet that the universe is only one event, although he of course is not in the physical sense. But even if you're asking yourself what this universe, picturesque document will not offer any response, although they will pretend to provide conclusions on the nature of the universe. If you set the thesis wells road vet on the cause of the universe outside the universe itself does not raise the hair on your head, "proof" of the nature of the universe, without wells road vet the definition of the universe, must compel wells road vet you to serious reflection wells road vet on whether and in general to continue to be involved in this attempt at a scientific approach to Christian manner.
And if, let's suppose, just for the sake of their own correctness and somewhat fun, it is required the definition of the universe or some kind of secret image can not informing us, or so well-known and perfectly clear, there is no need for us is repeated.
And in turn, that there is to be a "proof" of the existence of God be cloaked or mystery or assumptions about the knowledge of readers, from the very beginning we get from the image definition of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Hmmm, why is so eager right now to the definition of the laws of physics, and yet avoids a definition for whom the effort to prove the existence of God?
Q rosto to the conclusion that the claim of the existence of the causes of the universe simply necessary to ignore some basic things and insist on someone else. To konkretizovao, will explain why the picture must to avoid the definition of the universe to general and indulged in their performance of "proof".
In a rational philosophy, the term "universe" means the totality of svakolikog existence. This definition is supported by relevant encyclopedias and lexicons. So, for example, Merriam-Webster gives the definition by which the universe is "the totality of things and phenomena that have been observed or postulated." From here it is quite clear that if we assume the existence of any fact, properties or connections, they must necessarily be part of the universe, that exist in it. In this way, the idea of something that is outside the universe is not meaningful, because it points to something that has no reference - simply does not exist "outside" of the universe. wells road vet
And in turn, as much as blinking, we can not help but noticed that some goal that whole "entropy argument" to prove that there is not just something, but just something consciously, which is responsible for the creation of the universe. Theists indeed I was not disputed the need for the starting point of creation, as long as we look at it as something that is by its nature consciously, at least call it the cosmic will, which creates the universe with his mere desire, or figurative crackled more figurativnijih fingers. This kind of mental acrobatics, theists over "entropy argument" by trying to
No comments:
Post a Comment