Well, it is well known that CSP was not so very keen on existence. Even
though he succeeded in completing his Existential Graphs to his full
approval. But on being that was not the case.
Being was to him the key to what is real. What was real (to him) was
effects.
Does belief in God have effects. - It most certainly does. No statitical
tests needed.
Wtih existance follows the question of location.
With elector-magnetic phenomena the question is just silly.
Was CSP essentialist? - Absolutely so. But not in the sense of catching
any being by any set of firmly set definitions. - Which are just as
abolutely needed in deductive inferences.
Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 12.6.2017 15:08:
On 6/12/2017 7:33 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:
It may well be that it is LOGICALLY impossible to prove.
That may be true. That may be like the existence of God.
There are no proofs that God exists. There are no proofs that
God does not exist.
In fact, there are no two people -- believers or nonbelievers --
who will give you the same definition of God. Just ask them.
But I do think they are worth some attention.
I agree. A useful term is 'prescientific'. That is not the
same as 'unscientific'. It just means that the methods of
science are not applicable. Perhaps someday they might be.
But nobody knows how.
John
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
