Autor Tópico: Diferenças sociais:evidências de 'vidas passadas' ?  (Lida 25720 vezes)

0 Membros e 1 Visitante estão vendo este tópico.

Offline _Juca_

  • Nível Máximo
  • *
  • Mensagens: 12.922
  • Sexo: Masculino
  • Quem vê cara, não vê coração, fígado, estômago...
Re:Diferenças sociais:evidências de 'vidas passadas' ?
« Resposta #425 Online: 12 de Abril de 2014, 20:32:35 »
Método científico é uma coisa mágica que contém todas as respostas do universo? Ou multiverso.

Com ele Não precisamos explicar o que não sabemos com misticismo e fé.

Offline Entropia

  • Nível 22
  • *
  • Mensagens: 845
  • Sexo: Masculino
Re:Diferenças sociais:evidências de 'vidas passadas' ?
« Resposta #426 Online: 18 de Abril de 2014, 17:13:09 »
Isso é bom(e longo)
Against the Supernatural as a profound Idea


This article will show that the term "supernatural", and similar terms, cannot have any of the profound meanings that people normally think they imply. This leaves a choice of discarding the word as incoherent or accepting its use but only with less profound meanings. This has implications for the frequent theistic claim that a "supernatural" god exists who is profoundly different to anything else.


The Problem of Boundaries

The supernatural is rarely defined in terms of what it is, but more usually in terms of what it is not. For example, supernatural things are said to be not in reality, not physical, not scientifically understandable, not made of matter, not explainable by science, not describable by science, not scientific, not subject to human understanding, not subject to logic, etc. The "supernatural" claim, expressed in these terms, is based on the idea that everything can be divided into two categories: those things in the "supernatural" category and those in the "natural" category.

I want to establish first that if you are going to say that there are two classifications of things, "natural" and "supernatural", you are declaring a boundary - a diving line separating those things. Your concept of "supernatural" only makes sense if you can define that boundary in some meaningful, useful way.

Here is a simple example. If I draw a circle on a piece of paper and place a coin inside the circle I can say, "The coin is in the circle." If I place the coin outside the circle I can say, "The coin is outside the circle." When making these statements I am splitting the sheet of paper up into two parts: inside the circle and outside the circle. This only makes sense because I have declared a boundary between these two parts of the piece of paper, and that boundary is the circle's perimeter. It is clear what "inside the circle" and "outside the circle" mean. Now, suppose that I place the object on the paper but do not draw a circle. I place a coin on the blank piece of paper and say, "It is outside the circle." Suppose also that nobody had ever said the word "circle" to you before. You would be justified in saying that I had not provided enough information to make my claims that things are inside or outside the circle mean anything at all. In fact, my very ideas about "inside the circle" or "outside the circle" mean nothing

Lida com basicamente todos os tipos de definir o que é(ou não é) sobrenatural.


Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!