maker, for the tree itself is already in Nietzsche, as another example when facing the universe, denies ‘order’ and ‘laws’ and assigns the universe to be a product of ‘chaos’ and ‘hazard’, by doing so he gets rid of the need of a ‘creator-cause’.
The individual person when facing the universe and trying to explain it, has the free choice to believe or disbelieve in any causality assumption. The Aristotelian postulate of the ‘prime cause’ prompted by a ‘presumed necessity’ to explain Leibniz and a ‘moral necessity’ proclaimed by Kant.
The five assumptions of Sartre, Nietzsche, Aristotle, Leibniz and Kant represent personal convictions.
If we admit the finality of a house is habitation and the finality of medical science is healing, we cannot then exclude theoretical hypothesizing about finality for natural phenomenon, atmospheric pressure, water and the sun, life and Man.
The scientific taboo is found between the maker of intentional finality, in objects made by man that are subject to verification, and a presumed maker of natural phenomenon, a presumption eliminated from explanation.
The postulated argument of St. Augustine identifying ‘reason with revelation’ remains, at best, a personal conviction, and not subject to verification. Logic here submits the idea of the existence of a God, depicted in the Scriptures, to human reason. Such an exercise, very frequently used in the history of religious thought (often drawing support from Aristotelian metaphysical presumptions), attempts to justify statements of the Scriptures according to monotheistic assertions. The attempt is only intellectually hypothetical. Should there be the least index of its proclamations the whole humanity has already found
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24