irichc     Fecha  26/04/2004 22:07 
Sistema: Windows XP

Admin: Borrar mensaje La hipótesis no es redundante, ya que evita que los entes se multipliquen sin medida en un tiempo infinito. Luego no se viola la navaja, sino que se aplica. (n/m)
Mensaje
>The theist :
>
>(1) God is causa sui (his own cause). He has the reason for his being in himself.
>
>The atheist :
>
>(2) The Universe is causa sui. The Universe has the reason for its being within itself.
>
>Both (1) and (2) state the same problem of inteligibility: conceiving something which is causa sui. The difference is that (1) is a retrograde step in regard to (2), thus being less obvious, because we cannot empiricaly know God. But, the comprehensibility scheme is the same.
>
>Why , in the opinion of the theists, is (1) more reasonable than (2) ?
>
>As I see it (1) is by no means a claim which makes the Universe more inteligible and resolving the common sense difficulty encountered in (2).
>But it just violates Ockam's razor by postulating a redundant hypothesis while keeping the comprehensibility problem it tried to solve.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                


Respuestas (12)



Volver al foro

Responder


Nombre
E-Mail
Asunto
Web
Notificar por e-mail respuestas.
Mensaje