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.
Fallacious Arguments That God Exists
In 1963, my metaphysics teacher in college was W. Norris Clarke, SJ According to him, the argument for the creation of the universe for the existence of God began in history with Aristotle’s idea of the “prime mover.” Following Aristotle blindly, Thomas Aquinas called the “prime cause” the “first cause.” In the 1920s, Etienne Gilson made the argument for astronomy sound and persuasive by focusing on Aquinas’ science. The argument of creation is this: A finite being is necessary because, therefore, an infinite being exists. It is an argument, not a proof, because it is based on the assumption that humans are finite and the hope that nature is rational. In Western religions, we call man infinite God.
In the early 1960s, it was discovered that the universe, with all its galaxies and stars, began to exist 13.7 billion years ago as an infinitesimal particle (Big Bang). This is the reason to believe that God is the one who inspired the people who wrote the Bible because the Bible often says that God created all things out of nothing. Since human authors knew nothing about the expanding universe and the background rays of the universe, the Big Bang is a sign or reason to believe the Bible.
Another reason to believe the Bible is that people who believe in God, often do not discuss the facts of the universe in a reasonable, intelligent, and honest way. Instead of saying that the creationist argument for the existence of God is not convincing, they say, “I don’t know if there is a God or not.” Suffering from cognitive dissonance, atheists do not like to think about cosmological arguments.
Fr. Spitzer thinks that the Big Bang is proof that God exists. I think it is proof that there is no God because it is proof that the universe is incomprehensible. If two judges reach different verdicts after a long trial, one judge has a better verdict than the other. But if one judge says little evidence that he is guilty and the other says he is innocent, then one judge is more knowledgeable, wiser, more rational, or more honest than the other.
Fr. Spitzer also thinks that the “fine tuning” of the constants of physics is evidence of an “intelligent designer.” This nonsense is based on the fact that physicists do not understand why the mass of an electron and the speed of light are what they are. If these numbers were different from what they are, nature would not be the same as it is and there would be no mammals. Since humans are mammals, we would not exist.
Another example of this reasoning comes from the fact that the Earth is 93 million kilometers from the Sun. If it were number 92 or 94, it would be too hot or too cold for life to emerge and evolve. This is not proof that there is someone intelligent who made it because we know what caused the number to be 93. What caused this distance is Newton’s laws of motion and accident. If one does not understand the concept of randomlyyou can explain it by showing that there are many planets that are not 93 million kilometers away from their star.
In the “correction” theory, scientists don’t know why the numbers are the way they are. Religionists and anti-religionists, however, debate whether there are many other worlds with different physical variables. They don’t even consider the question of whether or not celestial objects make sense.
In this book there is a passage that sounds like it is related to belief in God, but it supports the ignorance and stupidity of atheism:
Self-awareness (cognitive awareness) is difficult to explain through regular models of time (a single act of self-awareness, if). (position 2211)
I agree that our ability to turn ourselves around and handle ourselves in our lives proves that humans are human beings and that the existence of other humans proves that we are infinite human beings. But, compare Spitzer’s statement with a statement from the most widely used biology textbook in the United States:
And some features of the human brain distinguish our species from all other animals. The human brain is, after all, the only known entity that attempts to understand itself. For many biologists, brain and mind are synonymous; understand how the brain is made and how it works, and we will understand mental functions such as abstract thoughts and feelings. Some philosophers are not comfortable with this view of the mind, finding Descartes’ idea of the duality of mind and body too attractive. (Neil Campbell, Biology, 4th edition, p. 776)
Fr. Spitzer confuses two research methods: physics and metaphysics. Most people who believe in God agree that what man knows is incomprehensible. But if you ask them what caused the explosion, they will say the same thing: It is a mystery. There are no secrets in science. There are unanswered questions because science has a very successful history. If scientists didn’t think this way they wouldn’t work so hard and long trying to answer scientific questions. There is only mystery in metaphysics. We must stop trying to understand what a person is because it gives us reason to believe that there is a truth that is beyond and before our freedom.
In the cultural debate over the theory of intelligent design for evolution (ID), both sides are negative in different ways and for different reasons. In the infamous Wikipedia article “Sternberg Peer Review Controversy,” a biology journal editor published an article promoting ID behind his fellow editors of the Biological Society of Washington. His friends at the Smithsonian Institute were furious and treated him very badly and caused a congressional committee to write a report entitled, “Intolerance and Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian: Smithsonian Senior Officials Allow the Defamation and Harassment of a Scientist Who Put Darwin. Evolution.”
There is another example of religionists and anti-religionists arguing about science. For this reason, God-fearing people are rational and atheists act irrationally. According to the second law of thermodynamics, heat flows from hotter things to colder things, not vice versa. Thinking that cold matter is more tolerant and difficult to understand than hot matter, some God-fearing people say and think that evolution violates the second law. In 2008, Mr American Journal of Physics published an article on evolution and thermodynamics with a nonsensical calculation to prove that evolution does not violate the second law. The American Journal of Physics He is refusing to do anything to fix things because it would be news in the news. Americans would have realized how stupid and irrational people can be when it comes to science and religion.
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
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
#Fallacious #Arguments #God #Exists