In this context, the antinomies that Kant formulat in the Critique of Pure Reason could be brought up . As he stat, in matters of this nature, matters that have their roots in deep spiritual demands, in whose scope it is impossible to resort to empirical evidence (since, to put it in the German philosopher’s own terms, these are spheres that illegitimately transcend the limits of possible experience), any of the two competing theses can be support with equal argumentative force. Propose to demonstrate the existence of God (for example, through the evidence provid by Saint Thomas
Pursuit of Which It
Aquinas and Saint Anselm in the Middle Ages, and, currently, arguing as the theory of intelligent design does, which amounts to something like this as the scientific advance of religion), or, on the contrary, trying to demonstrate b2b leads its non-existence (through the work of these four horsemen of the new atheism, for example) are endeavors equally aim at evidentiary sterility. What can be consider a good argument in objective terms clearly cannot be determin with absolute precision.
Did Not Hesitate to
Both atheists and believers “feel” that their own arguments are the best . Although, of course, a believer could perhaps settle the matter by saying that faith does not have to be the object B2C Fax of rational argument or support. But, taking into account that the dispute around this topic usually involves the confrontation of arguments, it is clear from what has been said that it can be equally absurd, crazy, in short, foolish, to strive to demonstrate either of these two possibilities.
Leave a Reply