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
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. Reality
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
make sense of
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?
Why do I
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 this stage
5 matches
Mail list logo
