I do not understand, I am sorry. Maybe someone in this thread can understand.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I do not understand, I am sorry. Maybe someone in this thread can understand.
M
morganist
Quote from trendlover:
I do not understand, I am sorry. Maybe someone in this thread can understand.
i will try to explain again.
when there is a new invention for example a motor someone will think up that concept. they will come up with the idea and offer something that did not exist before. for example the sterling engine. if someone else then builds a sterling engine or even invents something using the concept they are merely imitating what the other person has done. they were not the initiating factor the original inventor was.
is the reason for the initial invention based on a reason for solving problems or increasing efficiency in transport. if so has the ability of humanity been enabled by the will of people to ease pain and advance society. is that humanity something which is god given and also the fact that some people have the ability to invent things when other do not in itself given by god (selective intelligence). or is that a form of progress in itself. my point being if people will act badly when the things that ease burdens in society are taken away. is that admitting there has been no progress through morality and that the original inventor did not have kind intentions and thus all intelligence is given by god, as the progress which is driven from morality does not exist due to people reverting to immoral activity when the resources from advances are taken away.
unless of course this progression in morality has evolved into a regression. in itself doubting the concept of evolution, who is to say that evolution is an advantageous progress. perhaps we are evolving morally but the new evolution is a negative one.
Quote from morganist:
i will try to explain again.
when there is a new invention for example a motor someone will think up that concept. they will come up with the idea and offer something that did not exist before. for example the sterling engine. if someone else then builds a sterling engine or even invents something using the concept they are merely imitating what the other person has done. they were not the initiating factor the original inventor was.
is the reason for the initial invention based on a reason for solving problems or increasing efficiency in transport.
Like the wheel? One invention evolve to the better invention.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004203/science/science02.htm?tqskip1=1
M
morganist
Quote from trendlover:
Quote from morganist:
i will try to explain again.
when there is a new invention for example a motor someone will think up that concept. they will come up with the idea and offer something that did not exist before. for example the sterling engine. if someone else then builds a sterling engine or even invents something using the concept they are merely imitating what the other person has done. they were not the initiating factor the original inventor was.
is the reason for the initial invention based on a reason for solving problems or increasing efficiency in transport.
Like the wheel? One invention evolve to the better invention.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004203/science/science02.htm?tqskip1=1
isn't that based on observations of nature physical laws, in which case one who set the physical laws and two how can we appreciate them.
you might want to read thomas aquinas the third way, efficient causation. that might elaborate my point.
thank you for your thoughtful responses i appreciate your efforts and found the last link interesting.
M