|
Mocker
|
 |
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
|
|

Feb 3rd, 2004, 11:48 AM
I don't have a complete disgust of a posteriori arguments; I just feel that they are inappriopriate within economics and cannot provide absolute knowledge - but then, very little if anything can provide absolute knowledge to begin with.
You remember my proof of the supernatural that I posted, right? Well, a few days ago I saw the cosmological argument, and I realized that the two are so similar that I might as well just accept the latter one.
Personally, I prefer the version that relies on time - if the natural world has always existed, then a logical contradiction takes place; the point in which we exist would never be reached.
Also remember that I only use the argument for the supernatural, rather than for God.
|
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
|
|
|