They say that God does not exist in an objective and real sense; they do not think he is a real human entity existing in the world. For the Deist, God is the creator of the universe. God really exists but he does not and cannot intervene within the world. And lastly, for the Atheist, there is no God to bring about any kind of miracle. I myself am an Atheist, and therefore in my opinion believe miracles are impossible as all miracles are by, definition impossible if they claim to be the action of a deity.
The prime mover is the unmoved mover, this is similar to the domino effect were someone (the prime mover) nocks over a domino causing the adjacent dominos to topple as well but the starter of the chain reaction is unmoved itself. The prime mover is eternal and not a substance. Everything is attracted to the prime mover as it is perfection; this makes the prime mover everything’s final cause. There is no evidence backing up Aristotle’s theory of the prime mover. The prime mover does not interact with the world making it essentially irrelevant.
It is impossible, though, that the series of causes should extend back to infinity because every cause is dependent on a prior cause and the ultimate cause is thus dependent on a previous cause. So if there is no first cause, there will be no intermediate causes and no final cause. But the absence of such causes clearly does not square with our observation, and so there must therefore be a first efficient cause, which everyone
Even though this generation might be losing some ability to focus for long periods of time, technology is helping us adapt to the ever-changing world. There are people who believe that this generation is the dumbest, but others would disagree. Some would argue that times have changed, as have the ways of research and learning. This generation might not know the same things as their grandparents, but that is because they are taught different occurrences in history, then back when their grandparents and parents were in school. Furthermore, many people honestly believe that the technology isn’t making us stupid, but it is making that generation smarter and more capable of understanding the world around them.
Critically assess Dawkins’ claim that since life is no more than DNA reproducing itself, there can be no life after death. Richard Dawkins strongly rejects the notion that there is a life after death, and similarly that humans have no ‘soul’ – as in the traditional sense of a soul being a spiritual object which is distinct from our bodies. He argues that we are purely a product of our own genes, and all that our genes are concerned about is surviving and reproducing, meaning that we are no different from a plant or an animal. Personally, in my opinion, it seems realistic that Dawkins’ claim is true, because of the evidence of neuroscience, as well as the fact that it provides the most scientific explanation. Those that would argue against Dawkins’ ideas may consider themselves dualists; the most famous dualist would be Plato.
Hitler may have found himself very successful in his endeavors, but Hitler is not regarded as a success whatsoever. The dictionary definition of success is “ The accomplishment of an aim of purpose.” One may argue that simply setting a goal and reaching it is success; this is not the case because people forget that the goal must have purpose. Purpose is more than simple things that we all want as individuals. A purpose is something that has meaning to it, something important. Having large amounts of money is not a purpose in that of itself, because you have done absolutely nothing with it.
But the de-skilling hypothesis is also about technology. De-skilling technology implies that no significant investment in developing the skills of ordinary workers was required. Although millwrights and engineers needed new skills, the hypothesis implies that ordinary workers’ skills imposed no significant requirements on the adoption and implementation of this new technology. Technological change appears as an elite process, driven by inventors, entrepreneurs and a narrow stratum of supporting skilled craftsmen; the de-skilling hypothesis corresponds to the “heroic” view of invention. But far less evidence supports this aspect of the de-skilling hypothesis.
The country that looked like gold wasn’t even worth copper. A lesson that we can all get from this is that if there’s a problem we can’t really wait on somebody to solve it for us. We all have to get together and stand up for what we think is right. Sadly, everybody in politics doesn’t have your best interest at heart. So the only person that can help you is you.
Why or Why Not? I do not believe that all students should receive the benefits of what is reserved for “gifted and talented” students. The reason I believe this way is simple, not all children are capable of handling the work necessary to receive such benefits. There are some students who have illnesses or mental difficulties that prevent them from utilizing things that some talented and gifted students receive. It is unfortunate, but it is also a fact of life that not everyone is capable of handling everything that someone else may be able to handle.
Judge Sweet found that none of the methods were tied to any particular machine, nor did they bring about a tangible transformation of anything. Rather, “because the claimed comparisons of DNA sequences are abstract mental processes, they also constitute unpatentable subject matter” (p. 4). Judge Sweet also added that, even if the claims were construed in such a way that they constituted “physical transformations associated with isolating and sequencing DNA, they would still fail the ‘machine or transformation’ test under §101 for subject matter patentability.” (p. 147). Taking it to the Next Level. Where do we go from here?