Although Popper never applied the falsification principle directly to religious language, it is clear that this could pose challenges to religious beliefs as you cannot falsify a religious statement. However, you could say it doesn’t pose a challenge to religious beliefs as Popper never applied the falsification principle to religious beliefs and could have had a different view towards religious statements. However, John Hick (1922-present) argued from the side of religion saying that the falsification principle doesn’t offer any real challenges to religious beliefs. This is because Hick believed in eschatological verification, this is that a statement can be verifiable if true but not falsifiable if false. This means that if religious statements are
However, some people would argue that although some things do need a cause to move, such as someone turning the pages of a book, people and animals move themselves with no cause at all, they do not need to be moved by something else, therefore there does not need to be a chain of causes for everything. Aquinas’ second way was cause; he stated that everything that exists needed a cause to come into existence. There is a chain of causes that goes back through time; however it cannot be an infinite chain or nothing would be caused at all, therefore there had to be an original cause, he also argued that the first cause was dependant on nothing and therefore did not need a cause. Aquinas believed that this first cause
Secondly, Aquinas concludes that common sense observation tells us that no object can create itself. In other words, some previous object creates it, but there cannot be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist. Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an uncaused first cause that begins the chain of existence for all things. I quite assent to the idea that there must have a first unmoved mover to put the universe into motion. As we all know, everything has a beginning and an end, so as to the universe.
‘By Definition a miracle can never happen.’ Discuss. Clearly the answer to this question depends on your definition of a miracle. The traditional understanding of a miracle involves the interruption of a Law of Nature, usually bearing deeper religious significance. ‘A transgression of a Law of Nature’ to quote Hume, suggests to many an impossible event and it is therefore immediately obvious why many agree that, ‘by definition, a miracle can never happen.’ However, it is interesting to note that Hume, in his famous argument against miracles, at no point implies that a miracle, by definition, can never happen. The basis of Hume’s attack is that there will never be sufficient empirical evidence to justify believing in a miracle.
This law states that in a closed system (our universe) energy can neither be created or destroyed it can only be transformed into another form. The most important part of this law is that this energy can only stay in that closed system. This so important is because this part proves to us that dualism is wrong. Let’s say that someone steps on your foot, for you to feel pain there has to be an energy sent from your foot to your mind so your mind can tell your foot to feel pain but there is a problem, according to a dualist the mind is not part of this universe so this energy can never be sent to the mind because according to the law of conservation of energy, energy can never leave this universe. Now the dualist would say that there is a part in the brain that links the brain to the mind but this would not work because even if there was a link between the brain and the mind that energy would still be sent out of our universe to another universe only it would be using a link.
He argued that they were part of the structure of the mind and that we would have no experience without them. He says that sight, smell, touch etc. are all meaningless to us unless they are brought under these innate concepts. Kant believes in a world beyond our conceptual scheme called the noumenal world which he says we can know nothing about and it is impossible to discuss. People have criticized this view by say that how can Kant know that the Noumenal world exists if there is no evidence of it.
However, it is important to note how the man on the mountain does not influence any choices and so just because one sees what is happening, this does not mean that it in any way influences the decisions made. Boethius adds to this by stating, how if God can see past, present and future but He cannot change or influence anything, as it is all happening at once to Him. This then means we can logically state that God does not answer with actions, as He is not with us temporally on earth. This means that there is a contradiction
People would feel that they have nothing for themselves. Terrorism does not give anyone the right to take away a person who has not done anything rights to privacy. I think that is what my main issue is. PRIVACY! I just hope that none of us ever have to deal with this issue.
This something else does not necessarily have to exist or to actually be somewhere at the moment in which a sign stands in for it. Thus semiotics is in principle the discipline studying everything which can be used in order to lie. If something cannot be used to tell a lie, conversely it cannot be used to tell the truth; it cannot in fact be used 'to tell' at all.’ However if we understand
Besides for these rules, no other rhythms may be used, and ties are not used in second species. It is important to look out for parallel fifths and octaves. Adjacent parallels must be avoided, especially those on strong beats as these are audible due to the fact that there is only one unaccented note between them. Adjacent parallels on weak beats are allowed as they are not audible. (Krebs,