follow «The classical arguments for God’s existence are not scientific arguments. Not because they’re weaker than scientific arguments, but because they’re stronger. The reason is that they don’t start with particular empirical facts. They rather start with what makes it possible for there to be any empirical facts to study in the first place. Science takes for granted that change is possible. Physics, chemistry and biology study the specific kinds of change that exists, but why is there any change in the world in the first place at all?
go sitehttps://www.psychiccowgirl.com/llkwi6sjfsw That is a philosophical question. The answer has to do with Aristotle’s theory of potentiality and actuality. And it’s once that’s in place that we have the ingredients needed for an argument for God’s existence.» see – Edward Feser i intervju
enter site
enter Vi kommer tilbake til hvordan disse ser ut i praksis i klassisk tradisjon! :)
https://reggaeportugal.com/syp2vnwa