According To Descartes There Is No Proof That Animals Atheistic Pseudoscience

You are searching about According To Descartes There Is No Proof That Animals, today we will share with you article about According To Descartes There Is No Proof That Animals was compiled and edited by our team from many sources on the internet. Hope this article on the topic According To Descartes There Is No Proof That Animals is useful to you.

Atheistic Pseudoscience

Steven Weinberg says there was a scientific revolution in the XNUMXth and XNUMXth centuries. To his credit, he provides enough information to support a controversial theory. I agree with the theory that modern science began in the 1300s when the Catholic Church rejected Aristotle’s theory that a vacuum is impossible. Prior to this, scientific achievements in ancient and non-Western civilizations were slow and erratic. The following statements support this theory:

After a period of translation and controversy over the reception of Aristotle, the creative work of science began in Europe in the fourteenth century. (2079)

What happened in the 14th century in the West is that scientific knowledge progressed continuously with one scientist expanding the achievements of other scientists. The author explains why this happened:

Robert Merton thought that Protestantism introduced good morals to science and encouraged the mixing of ideas and power and believed in a clear system of culture and beliefs that he found in the true character of Protestant scientists. (3977)

Science began in the West, not in other developed countries, because scientists believe that God created the universe out of nothing. This means that nature has a “natural order,” which encourages people to try to understand nature. The fact that an empty space is impossible shows that God did not create the universe because God has unlimited power and could have created an empty space. Weinberg discusses the Controversy of 1277, as it is called, but thinks that it hindered the development of scientific knowledge.

In my opinion, Steven Weinberg suffers from an intellectual disability because his atheism contradicts the fact that many people believe in God. The following quote shows that he is too preoccupied with religion because he feels the need to explain his lack of belief in God in a book about science and history:

It is not that the modern scientist decides from the beginning that there are no spiritual people. This is how I see it, but there are good scientists who are very interested in religion. (789)

The following quote shows that Weinberg’s mental and emotional problems prevent him from thinking clearly:

Or we may encounter situations that cannot be reconciled with all of science. For example, although we can understand how the brain works, it is difficult to see how we can describe human thought in physical terms. (4199)

There is an absurd quote that comes from Carl Sagan as recalled by Sean Carroll in a TV interview on the PBS Newshour. Dr. Carroll posted this video on his blog on March 14, 2014, with the title “A Good Time to Think About Science.” Here are the comments:

We are a collection of atoms and particles like the universe, but we have the power to make theory, collect data, and understand this universe.

The phrase “the brain causes consciousness” refers to human consciousness, as opposed to animal consciousness. Science is a research method that is based on facts. For example: Why is the sky blue? Knowing the sky is blue means more than light entering your eye and a signal going to your brain. It means realizing this. People ask: What is this awareness? This is not a scientific question because it does not come from our imagination. The question becomes why we can make ourselves the subject of our knowledge. It is a metaphysical question.

People have benefited greatly from answering scientific questions as described in this book. One could reasonably say that there are no mysteries in science, only unanswered questions. There is little success in answering metaphysical questions and the word mystery is important. As for awareness, those words can be avoided by saying, “The sky shows blue, and people are open to those manifestations.” There is no evidence that human consciousness is a brain process. Yes, there is evidence that animal cognition is a function of the brain.

When it comes to conscience, Steven Weinberg, Sean Carroll, and Carl Sagan are blind. However, the following quote indicates that Weinberg did not attend a Catholic college:

For Descartes the only truth is that he exists, he comes from seeing that he thinks about it… He (Rene Descartes) gives several reasons (all unsatisfying) for the existence of God, but he rejects the authority of established religion. (3162)

He was wrong in saying that the pineal gland is the seat of the soul that gives rise to human consciousness. (3181)

Descartes did not say that he existed. His words, “I think, therefore I am,” reflected a familiar experience that we all experience. We know we exist, not because we see ourselves, but because we can transform ourselves and hold ourselves in our lives.

Descartes was trying to explain free will by saying that there is a spiritual “child” behind the eyes that controls the body like a stage manager controls a team of horses. This nonsense is called dualism and it contradicts the metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas who said that unity is something beyond existence. A driver and a team of horses is not a person, it is a lot of people.

Descartes’ arguments for the existence of God may have been based on Aquinas’ well-known “five ways” and Aristotle’s “prime originator” argument. The best argument for the existence of God is called the cosmological argument for purely historical reasons. It is based on the metaphysics of Aquinas and the view that we have free will. Free will means that we have a center of action that makes us compatible with ourselves but different from other people. In other words, people have limitations. Being limited cannot be the reason for its existence because it cannot control itself. Just thinking or hoping that the universe is rational means that there is something infinite and it gave rise to the universe of infinite beings. In Western religions, we call the infinite God.

Body and soul are metaphysical concepts of matter and form that apply to humans. All people are equal because we are all one group or group of people. Life is the same or incomplete principle that makes us human, and the body is what makes us different from each other.

We can understand what a person is because we know everything we do and what happens to us. However, we cannot define or describe what a person is. We can only say that people are spirits. Another way of explaining this is to say that the human spirit is spiritual. In short, the physicists Weinberg, Carroll, and Sagan do not know what they are talking about.

Astronomy in the 1960s and later confirmed that the universe began 14 billion years ago. This raises a scientific question: What caused the Big Bang? There is no scientific answer to this question, and many people think that this “space” is proof that there is a God. My understanding is that the Big Bang is proof that God does not exist because it is proof that the universe does not make sense. However, the Big Bang is a reason to believe the Bible because in several places the Bible says that God created the universe out of nothing.

There are also four gaps like this: What caused prokaryotes to appear on Earth 3.6 billion years ago? What caused the evolution of animals from prokaryotes? What made life flourish? What caused the second law of thermodynamics to be suspended when life evolved into mammals?

One can name these five facts about the existence of God pseudoscience. Atheists respond to this pseudoscience with pseudoscience that is deeply flawed. Atheists are trying to fight fire with fire, or anxiety prevents them from thinking rationally and acting honestly. Here’s a pseudoscientific response to five god-of-space arguments:

  1. A large explosion was caused by a change in vacuum.

  2. Life on Earth came from another galaxy.

  3. Evolution was caused by natural selection.

  4. There are many other countries where the standards are different.

  5. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems.

Weinberg recommends #3 and #4 in his book. For evolution, I recommend reading the professional writings of well-known scientists:

  • Evolution Revolution: Evolution Is Real. Darwin is wrong. This Changes Everything
  • Evolution: A View from the 21st Century
  • The Possibility of Life: Solving Darwin’s Problem

Weinberg’s discussion of multivariate theory made it clear to me why the theory is ambiguous, and this is one of the reasons why I recommend this book. If the Earth were a little closer to the Sun or a little farther away, life would not have evolved. Question: Why is the distance between the Earth and the Sun 93 million kilometers? Answer: Random methods. If someone does not understand the word “random events,” you can say that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars each and most planets are within 93 million kilometers of their star. A question related to multivariate theory is this: Why do physical constants have the value they do? There is no answer to this question. So Weinberg’s interests come with the idea that there are plenty of other countries where the standards are different.

Weinberg and Carroll are guilty of promoting #5 because they are American physicists. The American Journal of Physics published an article called “Entropy and evolution” (Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008) saying that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics and gives the results of nonsense. to calculate. This article discredits every scientist in the United States.

There is another example of pseudoscience in his book that does not reflect badly on Weinberg’s character because it is found in physics books on quantum mechanics. In fact, I may be guilty of pseudoscience.

Instead of calculating the motion of a planet or particle, one calculates the evolution of probability waves, whose strength at any point and time tells us the probability of finding a particular planet or particle. (3896)

Weinberg refers to the Born statistical interpretation of the Schrödinger function. There is a lot of evidence that Shrödinger’s work is a wave, but there is no evidence that it is a potential wave. I present my points in an article titled “The Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics.”

Video about According To Descartes There Is No Proof That Animals

You can see more content about According To Descartes There Is No Proof That Animals on our youtube channel: Click Here

Question about According To Descartes There Is No Proof That Animals

If you have any questions about According To Descartes There Is No Proof That Animals, please let us know, all your questions or suggestions will help us improve in the following articles!

The article According To Descartes There Is No Proof That Animals was compiled by me and my team from many sources. If you find the article According To Descartes There Is No Proof That Animals helpful to you, please support the team Like or Share!

Rate Articles According To Descartes There Is No Proof That Animals

Rate: 4-5 stars
Ratings: 8141
Views: 25891766

Search keywords According To Descartes There Is No Proof That Animals

According To Descartes There Is No Proof That Animals
way According To Descartes There Is No Proof That Animals
tutorial According To Descartes There Is No Proof That Animals
According To Descartes There Is No Proof That Animals free
#Atheistic #Pseudoscience