Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> > Schaeffer maintained that the basis for antithesis is not that it was
> > an invention of Aristotle or anyone, but that the basis for antithesis
> > is reality itself, based on the God who is there (as opposed to not
> > being there).
>
> I agree with this a priori. At
Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Why should "nothing" be the default. Or to paraphase Quine, "Nothing is what
> doesn't exist. So what is there? Everything."
>
Everything that there is is there. But this is the ultimate in begging
the question. The question remains, why is everything (I see) there?
W
Tom Caylor wrote:
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> Tom Caylor writes:
>>
>>> One thing Schaeffer did was remind us that the assumptions of nature
>>> and cause were foundational to modern science. We have to assume that
>>> there is a nature to reality in order to study it and use our reason to
>>
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Tom Caylor writes:
>
> > One thing Schaeffer did was remind us that the assumptions of nature
> > and cause were foundational to modern science. We have to assume that
> > there is a nature to reality in order to study it and use our reason to
> > make sense of it. R
I have tried to find material discussing the following idea but have
not found any yet so I would appreciate comments.
The idea is based in the description of objects.
It was recently pointed out to me as being an aspect of my model by
Alastair Malcolm.
The idea is presented below and its res
5 matches
Mail list logo
